TalkCarswell.com

Douglas Carswell's Blog

19 AUG 2016

Economics isn't just an extension of politics

"The economic risk of Brexit is over", says Moody's. "Now the risk is the US Presidential election." For two centuries, economic growth has been driven by technological innovation. Why do the economic 'experts' seem to think it's all about politics?

Technology is radically transforming the global economy right now.

Last week, the World Economic Forum published a report on how blockchain – the technology behind Bitcoin - is set to revolutionise financial services. It offers more transparency, greater trust, fewer middlemen – and less need for ratings agencies like Moody's.

Blockchain's potential goes beyond business. Two weeks ago, the government made a blockchain company an approved public-sector supplier. It hopes the technology could eliminate fraud and overpayment in the welfare system.

Another incredible innovation on the horizon is the driverless car. Uber is about to pilot driverless minicabs – which will ultimately enable it to cut fares even further than it has already.

Ten years ago, who would have predicted that either of these technologies would now be mainstream?

Innovation tends to take everyone by surprise. That's nothing new.

Two hundred years ago, Malthus predicted mass starvation because of overpopulation. Instead, because of the agricultural and industrial revolutions, not only did the world's population boom, but the standard of living unprecedentedly rose too.

The unpredictability of innovation is one of the reasons why economic 'experts' have such trouble foreseeing the future – and why the doomsayers are so often wrong.

Of course, politics can negatively affect economies. In fact, it usually does. The more politicians try and micromanage the economy, the more they hold it back.

But innovation is changing politics too. Thanks to the digital revolution, politics as we know it is giving way to iDemocracy.

Politicians love to think economic growth is all about them. No one else needs to play along with their fantasy.


18 AUG 2016

We can trust the experts - to get it wrong

Unemployment will rocket if we vote Leave, they said. Instead, it's fallen. Time and again, the economic data since the referendum has proved the 'expert' predictions wrong.

Here's a reminder of their perfect record of failure:

  • Referendum uncertainty will slow economic growth in the second quarter, the Bank of England told us. In reality, the growth rate rose.
  • Markets will reassess the UK's prospects after a vote to Leave, said the Treasury. The FTSE 100 is close to its all-time record.
  • Britain's economy will suffer a post-referendum recession, Berenberg confidently predicted in the spring. Actually, there won't, admit Berenberg now.
  • Foreign direct investment will fall, warned the IFS. Which must be why Japan's Softbank is putting £24 billion into ARM.
  • No one will want to make trade deals with post-Brexit Britain, sneered the OECD. Except China, India, the US, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, Switzerland, South Korea, Japan, Mexico, Iceland... Have I missed any?
  • There'll have to be an emergency budget, threatened George Osborne. Not a chance, we were assured – by his replacement.
  • Farming will collapse, Welsh First Minister Carwyn Jones seriously suggested. The government has already guaranteed to match CAP funding.

At this point, any logical person would be surprised if the so-called 'experts' got something right. Yet the mainstream – or should that be the Remainstream? – media is still shocked by every failed prediction. No amount of reality can shake their faith in their failed oracles.

'Independent' pundits and 'experts' seem to be stuck in their Brexit bunker. Maybe someone could tell them it's safe to come out.


17 AUG 2016

Rail fares rise because the government has a monopoly

Strikes on Southern Rail. Abellio keeping the East Anglia franchise despite persistently poor performance. Rail services aren't improving, but the government is raising fares yet again. If you need evidence that public-sector monopolies don't serve the public interest, this is it.

Rail fare rises are a tax on employment. Many of my constituents have no choice but to commute by rail to London for work. Yet the rail fares have increased faster than their wages.

The idea that rail fares only rise in line with inflation is - as Moneyweek's Merryn Somerset Webb astutely points out - a lie. CPI has long since replaced RPI as the official measure of inflation. But, for rail fares, RPI still applies. Why? Because it's over a percentage point higher. The aim is to milk commuters for as much as possible.

The government raises rail fares because it can. It has a monopoly. It owns all the track. It awards all the franchises. The Department for Transport has much more control since 'privatisation' than it ever did in the days of British Rail.

All the franchise system has done is replace quangocracy with corporatism. Private companies get to operate the railways, and reap guaranteed profits – at the expense of taxpayers and commuters. The rail regulator consistently supports the interests of the operators rather than the consumers.

The track, meanwhile, is still run by a government agency. Network Rail is fully state-owned. That doesn't make it any better than the franchise operators. In my corner of Essex, repairs regularly overrun, causing misery for my constituents as they try to get to work.

No matter how poor the quality of service, the government will always demand more from commuters – because commuters have no choice. Fares never fall, because there is no competition.

"Renationalise the railways," says Jeremy Corbyn. In what sense have they been privatised?


16 AUG 2016

It's time to end Nixon's failed monetary experiment

Richard Nixon was, in many respects, a disastrous president – chiefly remembered for Vietnam and Watergate. But one of his most destructive legacies is often forgotten. It began forty-five years ago yesterday, when he decoupled the dollar from gold.

By ending the Bretton Woods system, Nixon began an experiment that had never been tried in the world before: free-floating, fiat currencies, unbacked by any commodity. For the first time, governments had a total monopoly over the means of exchange.

Bretton Woods – or the gold-exchange standard – wasn't the same as the classical gold standard. It had fundamental flaws.

The idea was that the dollar would be convertible to gold at a fixed rate – although crucially only foreign governments, not individuals, could convert it. Other currencies, meanwhile, could be exchanged for the dollar, which would serve as the global reserve currency.

In practice, the Federal Reserve increased the money supply, inflating the dollar. The real value of the dollar fell, but the nominal price in gold didn't. So, naturally, other countries swapped their dollars for gold, causing a gold run.

But inflation before 1971 is nothing compared to the inflation since. Unbound by any link an external constraint, central banks have gone into overdrive: printing money to boost credit, artificially inflate markets, and fund government deficits.

The price of one ounce of gold has risen from $40 in 1971 to $1,339 today: a 3072% increase. Before 1971, the dollar price of gold had barely doubled in 200 years.

Gold hasn't got more expensive: money has become cheaper.

"So what?" you might think. "Why does it matter?"

Actually, it's hugely important.

Every housing bubble. Every debt crisis. Every banking failure. Every small correction that low interest rates obscure, and major crash that they create. Every bank bailout and subsidy scheme that transfers resources from wealth creators to rent-seekers, and entrenches inequality.

All of it can be traced to the full nationalisation of the money supply.

Financial pundits today treat today's monetary system as if it's normal. Any suggestion of fundamental change is seen as kooky and absurd. They seem to forget the current system has only been around for 45 years – and, in that short time, has brought the global economy to the brink of collapse.

To be a functioning means of exchange, money shouldn't be susceptible to debasement at the whims of central bankers. Commodity-backed money offers some security. Competing currencies, whereby the ultimate guarantor of value is the market, might be better still.

But first, we need to admit that Nixon's monetary experiment has failed.


15 AUG 2016

After Brexit, we can do more than just replace funding

The Treasury has guaranteed post-Brexit funding for farming and science – exactly as Vote Leave promised. It's an important announcement, which puts another Remain myth to bed. But I hope the government goes further than simply matching EU schemes.

The Treasury's announcement ought to be another nail in the coffin of Project Fear. We were told that after we left the EU farming would fold and science would cease. Instead – as Vote Leave said - support will continue, only it will come directly from our government, instead of via a detour through Brussels.

It's hard to understand why that should ever have been in doubt. Britain is the second-largest net contributor to the EU. For every two pounds we put in, we get only one back. All 'EU-funded' projects in the UK are already paid for by British taxpayers twice over.

What's important is not just that we'll have more to spend once we no longer pay dues to Brussels. It's that we – not the Eurocrats – will have control over how our money is spent.

I'd like to see the government explore the options that come with greater control. CAP often subsidises big corporate producers at the expense of smaller farms. Maybe, instead of simply replacing the payments, the government can create a fairer system.

The same applies to science. Many researchers worry not just about the funding but the fate of international collaborations. But Britain could keep participating in Horizon 2020 even as a non-EU country – like Israel. Or perhaps there are universities in non-EU countries that would welcome being better networked with our scientists. Let's look at the possibilities.

In farming and science, no less than in trade, Brexit is an opportunity.


12 AUG 2016

The Court of Appeal has got it right: leave Labour alone, M'Lud

The debate about who should be able to vote in Labour's leadership contest is none of my business. Labour's internal rules shouldn't be the business of anyone except the Labour party's. So I'm delighted the Court of Appeal has overturned the High Court's verdict, and let the party decide. The implications are profound.

Whether you're a member of any party or none, this ruling has consequences for you – and for our democracy. Parties should to the greatest possible extent set their own rules and arbitrate their own disputes about the application of those rules. Courts should not normally intervene.

Some argue that an activist judiciary is one of the checks and balances necessary for good government. They tend to be people who don't like what the majority voted for. Or lawyers with an inflated sense of what should be determined by lawyers.

Judges aren't elected by anyone. They aren't accountable to anyone. In this country, they aren't even subject to confirmation hearings by anyone who is elected.

So the notion of a judge interfering in politics is the opposite of a check. It's a power grab.

Judicial activism has been emboldened by the EU. Until we joined, it was impossible for Acts of Parliament to be struck down in court. Now they can be if they conflict with EU law: both in the ECJ, and in our own courts.

The courts could yet have an impact on our exit from the EU. A prominent law firm is preparing a legal challenge aimed at forcing Parliament to vote on triggering Article 50 – in the hope that the majority of MPs would vote it down, and block Brexit.

That would be deeply anti-democratic. Parliamentary sovereignty is shorthand for the sovereignty of the people. The referendum makes the will of the people crystal clear.

There may be a temptation for judges to get involved in the Brexit process. I hope the courts will act judiciously.


12 AUG 2016

BBC balance is baloney

The BBC Trust has published a report on BBC impartiality in presenting statistics. It concludes not just that the BBC is impeccably impartial, but that it should be "braver" in "guiding the audience". Is it April 1st already?

During the referendum campaign, I and other Leavers were constantly interrupted by BBC interviewers while trying to get across basic facts and figures about Britain's EU membership. We were barely allowed to articulate our arguments, let alone have them contradicted.

I didn't notice the BBC challenging Project Fear claims about economic collapse. In fact, it's still reporting them as fact – even now they've proved to be nonsense. Why are the so-called "experts" stating them never taken to task?

Yet the FT has reported the BBC Trust's findings as evidence that the BBC didn't attack Leavers enough. If only it had tried to discredit Vote Leave contributors more! Then the voters would have swallowed elite groupthink got the "facts".

Since the end of the referendum campaign – and its explicit restrictions on bias – the BBC has let its full pro-EU sympathies show. This is, after all, the organisation that commissioned staunch Remainer David Aaronovitch to explain why people voted Leave.

So I'm not sure what's more absurd: the idea that the BBC was somehow too easy on Leave campaigners, or the fact the FT – and perhaps the BBC Trust - seriously thinks it could have been.

In its outlook, the BBC is indistinguishable from the Guardian. No one could confuse it for FOX News. The problem is that, unlike the papers, it pretends to be neutral. That fiction is one of the reasons so many people – especially, I suspect, Leave voters – no longer trust it.

Impartiality, for any media outlet, may actually be impossible. But if the BBC is going to be the broadcast wing of the Guardian, it shouldn't be funded with licence-fee-payers' money.


10 AUG 2016

Leaving the EU must mean leaving the Single Market

The IFS has a new report out on membership of vs. access to the Single Market. It's welcome that they've finally grasped the distinction. But it's incredible they still think staying in the Single Market is possible after the clear vote to leave the EU.

During the referendum campaign, Vote Leave consistently showed that Britain doesn't need to be a member of the Single Market to trade with it. Few pundits seemed to understand the point, let alone make it. Yet the distinction is critical.

Single Market membership means 100% of UK businesses are bound by Single Market rules – even though only 6% of UK businesses export to the Single Market.

Access means trade goes on, but only those 6% have to comply with Single Market rules. That will lift a huge regulatory burden on the domestic economy.

But the IFS not only discounts the economic benefits of leaving the Single Market. It also maintains the fiction that remaining in it is consistent with the mandate from the electorate.

Over 17 million people clearly voted to take back control of their laws. That means leaving the Single Market. No amount of "expert" sophistry can change that. There can be no backsliding.

Despite recognising a distinction between access and membership, the IFS misrepresents what access means. It presents the options as binary: either free trade as a Single Market member, or WTO tariffs.

But there is of course a third option: a UK-EU deal to maintain free trade. An entire government department has been created to negotiate an agreement. Yet somehow the IFS seems to discount it as a serious possibility.

At this point, some "experts" like to point out that not being a member of the Single Market means we don't get a say on the rules. That's a misnomer too.

First of all, it's doubtful we ever had much of a say over the rules – as one 28th of a bloc.

More importantly, regulatory convergence has gone global. Rules on finance or pharmaceuticals aren't made in regional blocs, but in worldwide trade bodies.

Leaving the EU allows Britain to regain her voice in international regulatory bodies – like the World Trade Organisation. We will now have more of a say on the international rules affecting our key industries, not less.

The IFS spent the referendum campaign stumping for Project Fear. They now seem to be a surrogate for the denialists of continuity Remain. It's well-known that they receive EU funding. Reports like this don't do much for their credibility.

What a pity that, six weeks since the referendum, pundits and "experts" still won't take seriously the points that Vote Leave made, and over 17 million people voted for.


09 AUG 2016

Is Pax Americana over?

Six months ago, the US sent $400 million in cash to Iran when four American hostages were released. In secret. Without telling Congress. President Obama claims it wasn't a ransom. Iran says otherwise. Ransom or not, it symbolises a worrying shift in US foreign policy.

The President says the $400 million was backdated payment for an arms deal made before the Shah was overthrown. But that seems pretty odd too. Why settle up now with the regime that forcibly overthrew him?

The cash looks all the more concerning in the context of the Iranian nuclear deal. In theory, that stops Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb. In practice, not so much.

The deal lifted Western sanctions on Iran, worth billions of dollars. But the concessions in return were minimal. No destruction of centrifuges. No decommissioning of its plutonium reactor. Limited inspections.

Plus, it expires after 10 years. Not that the ayatollahs need that: Iran is already cheating according to German intelligence.

Yet none of this seems to concern the White House. Per Obama's chief foreign policy SpAd Ben Rhodes, the real achievement wasn't actually getting Iran to ditch its nuclear ambitions, but spinning the deal to the public.

The President seems to have pursued a policy of rapprochement with Iran no matter what. No matter its sponsorship of Hezbollah terrorism and Assad's genocide. No matter its avowed intention to destroy Israel. No matter its ruling regime's open and deep-seated hatred for the West, by which every American ally is a surrogate for the Great Satan.

The President tried the same approach with Putin: the Russian reset. The idea was that if America reaches out, peace follows. Events in Ukraine suggest otherwise.

As global policeman, the US hasn't always got things right – see Iraq and Vietnam. But in general it has been a positive force that kept rogue states in check.

Under Obama, it has retreated from that role. The question is: will that be a permanent shift, or a temporary holiday?

The next President will be either Obama's Secretary of State or an isolationist who seems to prefer the Kremlin to NATO. Either way, Pax Americana could be a thing of the past. Now we'll see how much we miss it.


08 AUG 2016

'Economic stimulus' is just corporate welfare

Taxpayer-owned RBS lost another £2 billion in the first half of 2016. Its shares are now worth less than half of what Gordon Brown paid for them. Yet policymakers still pretend that bailing out banks with public money is good for the public.

The Bank of England's unnecessary Brexit bailout includes another £100 billion for the big banks – such as RBS - plus another £10 billion to buy corporate bonds. Mark Carney calls it a stimulus package. The more accurate name for it is corporate welfare.

Printing money to give to banks doesn't come cost free. Ordinary savers and consumers have to pay for it via higher inflation – as Carney freely admitted. In effect, the banking elites who falsely claimed the economy would collapse if the majority voted Leave will now be paid a bonus with the majority's money.

For most people, corporate subsidy is the opposite of an economic stimulus. Channelling resources from savers and wealth creators to rentiers not only increases inequality, but also hinders real economic growth. It's one reason why productivity in the UK has flat-lined.

Because of the trillions pumped into zombie banks, the global economy is drowning in debt. If we want sustainable growth, we shouldn't be expanding corporate welfare; we should be cutting it.


05 AUG 2016

Brexit could transform international development

Criminal cultists. Hamas terrorists. Recent revelations about rogue recipients of British aid don't inspire confidence in DfID's due diligence. We're overdue a rethink of how we do international development – and Brexit makes it possible.

Foreign aid isn't just misspent in select cases. It's partly flawed in principle. Providing emergency disaster relief is absolutely right. But development aid is a different story.

The premise underpinning development aid is that the way to spread wealth is by simple redistribution from rich states to poor. But the history of the world in the 20th century shows that's not the case. As I pointed out in The End of Politics, there is no evidence of any link between aid inflows into a country and economic growth.

Take China. Fifty years ago, it was one of the poorest countries in the world. Mass starvation was a regular occurrence. Today, it is an economic superpower. Its GDP per capita is almost 50 times what it was in 1962, and its total GDP is over 200 times greater.

That transition didn't happen thanks to handouts from the West, but through trade and investment. It's largely the same story in India, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Now compare Asia with Africa. Despite being home to two thirds fewer people than Asia, Africa receives more development foreign aid – around $56 billion in 2015, according to the OECD. Yet, year after year, much of the continent remains still desperately poor. Aid hasn't changed the paradigm.

It's not all bad news. Parts of Africa are taking off economically – but only thanks to foreign investment.

What many on the Left can't accept is that, from the perspective of the countries receiving it, trade is aid. It has brought millions of people permanently out of poverty in a way that handouts never can.

When Priti Patel, the new International Development Secretary, said aid should be linked to post-Brexit trade deals, Labour were predictably quick to criticise. But taking back control of our trade policy from Brussels finally allows us to make new trade deals with developing countries that will benefit both parties.

Brexit could transform the way we do development assistance for the better. How's that for internationalism?


04 AUG 2016

Will Mark Carney use Brexit to stoke a dangerous bubble?

The Bank of England is widely expected to cut interest rates to record lows today. We're supposed to believe that Brexit makes more monetary stimulus for the economy indispensable. But that's not what the evidence shows.

Since June 23rd, markets have gone up, not down. So has foreign investment. The pre-referendum Q2 economic data, which the "experts" predicted would show uncertainty depressing growth, turned out to be strong. Yes, sterling fell against the dollar, but it has steadied, and Britain's gaping current account deficit suggests that, in relative terms, it was overvalued before.

Granted, not all of the data has been good. The PMI index shows business confidence has been shaken. But how much of that is down to the Brexit hysteria stoked by George Osborne and the Bank's Governor, Mark Carney?

UKIP's Economy Spokesman, Mark Reckless, suggests the Bank's policymakers are determined to cut interest rates no matter what because they're still stuck in a Remain mindset. You can watch his take here.

I suspect the malaise goes deeper still. If the financial crisis showed anything, it's that the global economy is dangerously hooked on credit. But the lesson central banks the world over have taken seems to be that the withdrawal symptoms are worse than the drug.

Since 2008, central banks have done everything they can to boost borrowing and spending all over again. The aim is to create the illusion of sustainable growth. But – as we saw in 2008 – a credit-fuelled boom is dangerously unsustainable.

Brexit isn't just the latest excuse for more money printing. It's the scapegoat for the monetary policy disaster. As Mervyn King, Mark Carney's predecessor, has written, cheap credit is the systemic risk to the global economy.

Instead of casting around for someone else to blame, shouldn't central banks take some responsibility?


03 AUG 2016

Taking back control doesn't end with Brexit

Brussels is apparently demanding Britain foot the bill for the gold-plated pensions of British Eurocrats. Denialist Remainers might want to take note: this kind of thing is why over 17 million people voted Leave.

During the campaign, Remainers disparaged it. Since, some Leavers have downplayed it. But the truth is Vote Leave's message on the money – the £350 million figure – resonated with voters.

Why?

It was, partly, a question of fairness. When Britain is facing budget austerity, why are we funding EU budgets to rise? When the state pension is being squeezed, why should we bankroll a luxury retirement for ex-Commissioners like Peter Mandelson? Why be governed by a remote, rent-seeking elite when we can take back control?

I believe the potency of the £350 million argument goes further than the referendum. It could also herald a shift in the way we think about inequality.

From Karl Marx to Bernie Sanders, political campaigners claiming to want to clamp down on inequality have always advocated forced redistribution: more taxes on the rich; more Government intervention; more State, less private property.

But the EU shows up that socialist dogma. It's the ultimate centralised Big Government bureaucracy. And it's run by people who have rigged the system specifically to promote inequality: to enrich themselves – with inflated salaries and special tax rates – at taxpayers' expense.

Vote Leave put forward a different answer. We said the way to stop the racket isn't to give our rulers more power, but to take back control. Over 17 million people agreed.

Public sector privilege and cliquey corporatism aren't confined to Brussels. It's rife among our own ruling elite too. The solution isn't socialism; it's to give taxpayers more control over their money, and how their taxes are spent.

Could a political party win on that platform? The lesson from the referendum is that control sells.


02 AUG 2016

Honours are the tip of the cronyist iceberg

"David Cameron's resignation honours list is riddled with cronyism," scream the pundits! Where have they been for the last six years?

The honours system is legalised corruption. Never mind cash for peerages. For some, knighthoods and ennoblement are priceless. More than enough for a Prime Minister to buy their loyalty – and their principles.

The vast reach of Prime Ministerial patronage is part of what makes Parliament so powerless. On top of the whips and the payroll vote – which incredibly extends to almost a hundred ministers – the promise of honours offers an added incentive for MPs to toe the line. Loyalty is acquired with a mix of bullying and bribery. Whatever happened to inspired leadership?

But titles are only the tip of the iceberg. What about the quangos? What about the revolving-door regulators? What about the boards of business advisers, populated by the same few dozen Davos types? Corporate cronyism is everywhere in government.

And it cuts both ways. The post-politics careers of former ministers invariably involve consultancy roles and corporate directorships. Is that a reflection of their expertise? Or is it - implicitly at least - in return for services rendered while in office?

Nepotism in British government is supposed to have gone out with Northcote-Trevelyan over 150 years ago. Instead it has been allowed it to creep back in under the subterfuge of royal recognition.

Our new Prime Minister has spoken a lot about equality of opportunity. The old-boys network is meant to be making way for meritocracy. Reforming the honours system would be a good place to start.


01 AUG 2016

The next leader of UKIP faces three big questions

The deadline for nominations has closed. A range of different candidates – including, I gather, Steve Woolfe, Lisa Duffy, Jonanthan Arnott, Diane James, Bill Etheridge and Liz Jones - will now compete to be the next UKIP leader. The winner will be declared mid-September.

I wish them all well. They are all decent people, and each one brings something distinct to the party. But I am not going to be backing any one candidate in particular. Why?

As UKIP's only MP I must try to work closely with the party leader. This was not always very easy in the past, but with a bit of good will and trust all round, I'm sure it will be possible going forward. That means staying absolutely neutral in the leadership contest – and letting our members decide.

The identity of the candidate I vote for will be something I keep to myself. And to be honest, I've not made up my mind.

For what it is worth, I feel that the next leader of our party faces three key questions. If he or she is able to address them, they and our party will thrive. If not, we won't.


1. What is UKIP for?

Founded to get Britain out of the European Union, the obvious first question our next leader faces will be, "What is UKIP now for?"

It's my own view that our future lies in going after traditional Labour voters. They have been let down by the cartel that is the Labour party. They deserve something better.

Almost two thirds of those that voted Labour in Clacton in 2010, voted UKIP in 2015. That's how we won in Essex, and it's how we can win elsewhere too.

But the next leader needs ideas on how to appeal to traditional Labour voters without simply trying to offer reheated socialism.

That is what the Corbynistas are there for. They are not doing a great job of it because, in the age of Netflix, top-down Fabianism just does not have the kind of mass appeal it might once have had in the 1950s.


2. What is our election strategy?

UKIP has 22 MEPs, 7 members of the Welsh assembly, 2 in the London assembly and 1 MP.

Of those 32 elected representatives, the majority of them will – thanks to Brexit - no longer hold elected public office in a couple of years. Nor are there many big elections on the horizon.

So do we focus on building up our presence in local government? If so, we need to up our local election game. Or do we hold out for a by-election to try to get our new leader into Parliament? If we go for the by-election route, do we fight it like we fought Thanet South – lots of noise, focus on macro issues? Or should be try the "beyond the base" approach that worked in Clacton?

The new leader needs to have clear answers.


3. Leadership style

If UKIP is going to rise to the challenge, competent individuals need to be given clear mandates – and allowed to get on with delivering them.

All party leaders surround themselves with sidekicks. But when those sidekicks are incompetent proxies, waging war on anyone who does not show obsequious devotion to "the boss," serious people move on. If the king surrounds himself with too many court jesters, the court jesters become the court.

UKIP's next leader needs to be collegiate. Winning elections means working with people who understand policy, messaging, data and direct mail – to name just a few. There are capable people within our party with those skills. The new leader needs to bring them into the fold.


29 JUL 2016

Hinkley Point is what's wrong with Government procurement

So let's get this straight: Hinkley Point won't come online until at least 2025. The price we'll pay for the electricity it generates is double the market rate. The contractor, EDF, has a track record of failure. How is this a good plan?

The fact that two EDF directors have now resigned over Hinkley Point should set alarm bells ringing in Whitehall. Its Flamanville plant is years late and three-times over budget – but at least it's been built. But, according to EDF's finance director who quit a few months ago, Hinkley Point could actually bankrupt the company. If that happens, what then?

Making a deal with the French and Chinese governments to foot the infrastructure bill for Hinkley Point must have seemed tremendously clever to George Osborne. But it comes with serious risks. For one thing, they could pull the plug. For another, is it strategically sensible to put nuclear assets in the UK under the control of foreign governments?

Banking on this plant to deliver 7% of our total energy is a huge gamble by the Government – especially when Britain is already facing a capacity crisis.

It's not as if they're aren't alternatives. Gas power is cheaper to produce, and the power stations are cheaper, quicker, and simpler to build. Plus, leaving the EU will give us much more flexibility over energy policy on fossil fuels. In the short-term, at least, gas looks a much safer bet.

Hinkley Point is an example of what often goes wrong in public procurement. Rather than simple solutions that are proven to work, the Government tends to favour complicated programmes that are too big to succeed. See NHS Connecting for Health. Or the Joint Strike Fighter. Or the Millennium Dome.

Isn't it time to learn from past mistakes?


28 JUL 2016

Let's break BT's monopoly - and Ofcom's

BT Openreach delivers woefully slow broadband in much of the country. Its customer service is, by many accounts, sub-par. It's a classic state-backed monopoly. So why has Ofcom chickened out of breaking it up?

By owning the network as well as acting as a service provider, BT has an obvious unfair advantage over its competitors. That can only be bad for consumers – which is why I joined a cross-party group of MPs in signing a report calling for BT and Openreach to be broken up.

But instead of a real change, Ofcom have instituted only a 'legal separation.' BT will still own Openreach, but Openreach will now get a new board of directors ...with the non-execs appointed by BT. It's a façade.

Removing BT's artificial market advantage would have been a start. But even that wouldn't have come close to solving the fundamental problem: the fact that Openreach has a monopoly over the broadband infrastructure.

For consumers to get cheaper, faster broadband, it's that monopoly which has to be broken. We need more broadband networks. Why not allow other companies to run their cables alongside Openreach's?

Ofcom's soft touch points to a deeper issue in the way regulators relate to the market. Too often, Big Business seems to get off lightly, while consumers lose out.

Why?

Partly because there's a revolving door between the regulators and the companies they oversee. It's the crony corporatist cartel at work again.

We don't just need producer competition. We need regulatory competition. Instead of unaccountable, public regulators, we should be looking to create competition between private regulators. The better the regulator at serving consumers' interests, the more it - and the companies it oversaw - would be trusted by the public.

State monopolies are a recipe for failure. To put consumers first, disperse power.


27 JUL 2016

It was "Taking back control," not immigration, wot won it

Since the referendum, some Remain campaigners have made out Leave's victory was solely driven by angry nativism, and Britain is now radically polarised. Their narrative has been uncritically repeated in parts of the broadcast media. But a new report by British Future – a genuinely neutral observer – with polling by ICM suggests these articles of faith are really nonsense.

Here are some of their most interesting findings:

  • Sovereignty was the top Leave concern: '54% of Leave voters said that "taking power back from Brussels" was the main reason they voted as they did, more than double the 24% who cited immigration as their number one reason.'
     
  • There is a broad consensus on immigration control: 'Three quarters (74%) of people agree that "Immigration brings pressures as well as gains, and our decision to Leave the EU gives us a chance to change the system."'
     
  • And an even broader consensus on the status of EU nationals already in the UK: '84% of the British public supports letting EU migrants stay – including three quarters (77%) of Leave voters.'
     
  • But voters on both sides disliked the tone of the immigration debate: 'A majority of Leave voters (52%) and UKIP supporters (53%) agreed that the debate on immigration in the campaign became dangerously overheated, with 80% of Remain voters feeling this way.'
     
  • Britain isn't necessarily an 'increasingly divided nation': 'In 245 out of 395 electoral districts the average person could easily expect to meet approximately the same number of people who voted differently from them in their main local high street.'
     
  • Continuity campaigning is holding Britain back: 'If the 48% tribe stays mobilised – and thinks it might ask the same question again – then the motley coalition of the 52% would have to stick together too, ready to refight the last war.'
     
  • A Brexit consensus is possible. If we transcend the tribalism, we can start to have new, productive debates: 'Many people will want to engage in the debate about what changes after Brexit could mean for the causes they care about.'

Have a read.


26 JUL 2016

Western guilt won't defeat terrorism

Nice, Munich, Ansbach, Würzburg, Reutlingen. Not a day seems to pass without a new act of terror in Europe, almost always with an Islamist motive. Security in our cities can no longer be taken for granted. Yet too many lazy assumptions remain unchallenged.

Europe is gripped by cognitive dissonance, writes the Spectator's Douglas Murray. He's right. Facts are being ignored because they conflict with predetermined narratives. That's a bad recipe for effective public policy.

After every terror attack, we still hear it argued that the victims are really the perpetrators.

The September 11th attacks were blamed, in some quarters, on American imperialism. The July 7th bombings in London on the Iraq war. Military adventurism didn't quite hold as a motive for the spate of atrocities in France over the last few years, so instead it was pinned on enforced deprivation in the banlieues.

What supposed oppression will be scapegoated for the recent attacks in Germany?

In some minds, only the West is capable of proactive violence. Non-Westerners only act with justifiable provocation. This is absurd inverse racism. Post-colonial guilt offers no protection against terror.

The only thing that Germany can be accused of is generosity. With several attacks perpetrated by presumed asylum seekers, Angela Merkel's magnanimous decision to admit so many people so quickly from Syria and elsewhere looks increasingly misguided.

It should be clear by now that mass immigration from a warzone where terror groups are ascendant poses security risks. Yet many remain unwilling to admit it. No matter the reality, the idea that all immigration is always beneficial is still considered sacrosanct.

Lone-wolf terrorism is difficult to eradicate. It can, however, be contained, and its effects mitigated. Israel, which has a far lower mortality rate per terror attack than Europe, shows how we might do it: a combination of low-tech defence mechanisms – e.g. concrete blocks around street targets – and high-tech tools – e.g. cyber-monitoring of radicals on social media.

But first our basic assumptions need to change. Self-loathing won't keep us safe.


25 JUL 2016

Boris can build a new consensus

Theresa May's decision to make Boris Johnson Foreign Secretary prompted howls of outrage in some quarters. But already the appointment looks inspired. Boris is showing that Brexit Britain will be optimistic and outward-looking. That's exactly the message we need.

As Foreign Secretary, Boris is delivering on the vision he presented as one of the leaders of Vote Leave. He envisaged a Britain that didn't wall itself into an outdated political union, but looked outward to new markets and global opportunities.

That message came across very clearly during the campaign. I saw it first hand when I joined Boris on Vote Leave's battle bus. His charisma may have drawn the crowds, but it was his message - Project Hope - which inspired them.

From the start, the received wisdom conveniently ignored the internationalism of the Leave campaign. Before the referendum, Brexiteers were smeared as parochial little Englanders. Now we're told the vote wasn't even about the EU, but just a bitter rebellion against globalisation. It's a narrative solely aimed at delegitimising the result.

Most people don't want to see Britain cut off from the world. Britain has always been a maritime, trading nation. Leaving the EU won't change that. Self-government doesn't mean isolation.

As the United States retreats from its role as global policeman under the current President, and perhaps even more so under the next, Britain may need to play a greater role in foreign affairs. European countries may have to put more resources into NATO. Cooperation with our allies will be increasingly vital to our national security. It's clear the new Brexit Government intends to deliver that.

Rather than provoke hysteria, Boris's appointment should actually reassure Remainers. The global outlook he is bringing to his new job offers the opportunity to both sides in the referendum for a new consensus. Let's help him build it.


22 JUL 2016

Labour voters deserve a better choice

Who represents Labour voters best? The unreformed Blairite who wants to ignore the referendum result? Or the unreformed Trotskyite who wants to scrap our nuclear deterrent? Don't they deserve a better choice?

In too many seats, voters have had too little choice for too long. Safe seats have made it too easy for candidates to get elected just because of the colour of their rosettes, and then ignore their constituents once the election is over.

Parliament has become a self-selecting cartel: instead of being chosen by voters, MPs are selected by – and loyal to – the party machine.

But cartel politics doesn't just undermine democracy. It also stops innovation, and entrenches bad ideas. Especially on the Left.

Successive Labour leaders have complacently assumed that Labour voters supported not just the EU, multiculturalism, and immigration, but also welfarism and fiscal irresponsibility.

What was once the workers' party has become paternalist and patrician: believing that all the masses want is more handouts bestowed upon them by the ruling elite.

The Left is disconnected from the times we live in. This isn't an era of passive receipt. This is the age of Twitter, Amazon, and Airbnb - where self-expression is expected, choice is normal, and disruptive innovation is progress.

In the modern world, one-party monopolies should be an anachronism. At the next election, I believe there will be huge opportunity for another party to give people in Labour seats still considered unlosable a real choice.

That party will need to offer a genuine alternative. It will need a plan to tackle both the rigged system that keeps political elites in power, and the rigged market that keeps corporate elites in the money. It will need to offer not handouts, but control.

I hope that party will be UKIP.


21 JUL 2016

In experts we trust?

Remember the post-Brexit economic Armageddon the 'experts' told us to expect? It's taken less than a month for them to admit they got it wrong.

Yesterday the Bank of England – which told us growth would plummet if we voted Leave - reported there is 'no clear evidence' of a slowdown. The IMF – which warned Brexit meant a recession – said, actually, it doesn't.

In reality, the economic data since the referendum is encouraging. The FTSE 100 is back in a bull market. The domestically oriented FTSE 350 is up too. ONS figures show unemployment is at record lows.

Yes, the pound has fallen, but - as Moneyweek's Merryn Somerset Webb points out – Britain's massive current account deficit suggests it was overvalued before.

It's tempting to believe some of the 'experts' now eating their words were deliberately dishonest during the referendum campaign. I suspect the truth is more prosaic. It wasn't a masterful conspiracy. Just groupthink.

The bogus Brexit predictions reflect a herd mentality. The 'experts' all produced the same conclusions, because they started from the same – false – assumptions.

They made out that a UK-EU free-trade deal wasn't possible. It clearly is.

They claimed we didn't know what Brexit looked like. In fact, our proposal was clear from the start.

'Experts' aren't infallible oracles. They can be as tribal as anyone else. Davos types don't think alike because they're great minds. They agree because they don't listen to the dissenters outside their bubble.

Is it any wonder they're out of touch with voters?

It's striking that the economic insiders who rejected the groupthink – Neil Woodford, Nick Train, Jim Mellon – are some of the top investors. People who made fortunes by ignoring the received wisdom, and separating themselves from the herd.

Trusting the 'expert consensus' can be high-risk. That's why I prefer to trust the people.


20 JUL 2016

Britain should welcome foreign investors

We were told Brexit would discourage foreign investment. The takeover of Arm by Japan's SoftBank shows what a fiction that was. Investors abroad want to keep buying into Britain. The question is: will our new government let them?

Theresa May welcomed the Arm deal. But she has also said she will assess foreign takeover bids on a case-by-case basis. She has now created a department for industrial strategy. The signs are a little ominous.

Asset stripping can of course be damaging. But there's also no reason why a foreign corporation should be more predatory than a British bidder. Attacking foreign investors would undermine the broader post-Brexit message that Britain is open for business.

More fundamentally, blocking takeovers is an assault on private property. Imagine your pension was invested in a British company that sparked foreign interest. Imagine the takeover bid made the share price spike (like Arm's), offering you a huge financial boost for your retirement. You'd probably want to sell. Why should the Government be able to stop you?

There's also the question of our investments abroad. British pension funds rely on foreign markets to diversify their portfolios. Emerging markets need British capital, and British investors can make good returns. If we put controls on foreign investment, what's to stop other countries doing the same to us?

The idea of 'industrial strategy' has a bad pedigree. It didn't work for Labour in the 1970s. It doesn't work in Defence. Government attempts to pick winners invariably produce losers – George Osborne's horrendous Hinkley Point deal being a case in point.

Micromanaging the economy from the centre is bound to fail. Concentrating control is the problem, not the solution. The PM is right to want to spread wealth. The way to achieve it is to disperse power.


19 JUL 2016

Trident is about sovereignty

I campaigned for Britain to leave the European Union because I believe in British sovereignty. Last night, I voted to replace Trident for the same reason.

The rationale for our independent nuclear deterrent is the same now as it was sixty years ago. When hostile powers and rogue states have nuclear weapons, we need them too.

The arguments against replacing Trident don't stack up.

It's too expensive, some say, as if surrendering a key pillar of our national security would be an economy.

We can shelter under America's nuclear umbrella, argue others. But in recent years the US has retreated from its role as global policeman. We can't just take its protection for granted. Nor would it be right for us to expect American taxpayers to pay for our security.

Then there are the resurgent Labour unilateralists. Jeremy Corbyn says we have to abolish Trident to create a 'nuclear-free world.' Anyone would think Britain were the only nuclear power on the planet.

Unilateralists are always conspicuously unconcerned about the nuclear capabilities of non-Western states. Who seriously believes the world would be a safer place if Russia, China, and North Korea were the only countries with nuclear weapons?

Mutually assured destruction has actually been remarkably effective at preventing nuclear war. The fact that no nuclear weapon has been used in anger since World War II, in spite of the Cold War, must be testament to that.

But Trident is not just about security. It's about independence. We don't need it only to deter a nuclear strike. We need it to stop another nuclear power holding us to ransom.

Preserving sovereignty requires the capability to use hard power if necessary. If we want to be a self-governing country, we can't give our nuclear deterrent up.


18 JUL 2016

The end of Osbrown?

The old Downing Street clique is out. We've got a new PM, and – perhaps more importantly - a new Chancellor. But will the new man at Number 11 ditch the Osbrown orthodoxy? Or will we just get more of the same?

In opposition, George Osborne styled himself as the radical alternative to Gordon Brown. In office, it was impossible to tell the difference.

Like Brown, Osborne borrowed during the boom years – doubling the national debt. Like Brown, he backed massive credit creation by the Bank of England. Like Brown, he tinkered incessantly with the tax code, and filled his budgets with political gimmicks.

Worst of all, like Brown, he now pretends to have saved the economy.

Eight years since the financial crisis, we're still facing the same problems. The big banks remain insolvent. Economic growth is still far too dependent on credit-fuelled consumption. Our huge current account deficit shows we're still spending far beyond our means.

Eight years of record-low interest rates haven't fixed the economy. Quite the reverse. The national debt is now so high, it's not even clear the British government would be able to bail out the banks if and when they collapse again.

Policymakers aren't prepared to do more than apply a short-term sticking-plaster: keeping zombie banks on life support by churning out credit.

The long-term solution requires the whole model of fractional reserve banking to be reined in - as I wrote several years ago in After Osbrown.

George has one advantage on Gordon: he got out before the storm. His dismissal by Theresa May might turn out to be a blessing in disguise for him.

Now Philip Hammond will be left to pick up the pieces. To fix the financial sector, he'll need to be radical.


15 JUL 2016

Cameron's legacy could be more direct democracy

I disagreed with David Cameron on a lot – which is why I left his party. But there is one aspect of his premiership which I think deserves praise: on three occasions, he called referenda, and let the people decide.

I'm a big believer in direct democracy. In a world where digital technology makes it easy for voters to be instantly clued in to current events, there's no justification for entrusting major national decisions to the political elite alone.

Since Britain's first referendum – Northern Ireland's vote on whether to join the Republic – in 1973, there have been a dozen others. But most have been local or regional. We've only ever had three national referenda. Two have been held in the last six years.

David Cameron called three significant referenda: on the Alternative Vote, Scottish independence, and Britain's EU membership. Yes, he did so under pressure. But the fact remains, he staked his political career on them, and ultimately lost.

Politics remains a cartel. Far too much power is still concentrated in a tiny clique at the top. Bringing back power from Brussels, under the new Brexit government, is a huge first step toward progress. The next will be bringing back power from Westminster and Whitehall.

That requires a government - and a party - far more radical than David Cameron's. But, intentionally or not, he has unleashed the momentum for change. Reformists now need to seize it.


14 JUL 2016

To solve inequality, Mrs. May, cut the corporatism

Theresa May's inaugural speech as Prime Minister focused on social justice. But her predecessor also promoted the 'Big Society.' In policy terms, it didn't amount to much. Patrician conservatism won't tackle inequality. The real solution is far more radical.

Inequality has increased not in spite of the last government, but, in part, because of it. George Osborne was a corporatist Chancellor. He backed monetary stimulus for broken banks. He subsidised corporate payrolls through the tax system. He tried to pick winners, and rig the market in the service of vested interests.

But the Official Opposition is no better. Ever since Rousseau, the left-wing answer to inequality has always been to redistribute wealth. Yet it has never succeeded. If anything, it has made the situation worse. In Venezuela – whose government Jeremy Corbyn admires – the population has starved while its Communist leaders live in luxury.

Redistribution fails because it just rigs the system in a different way. It channels wealth to a different privileged few. The real solution is the opposite. To solve the problem caused by rigging the market, Government has to stop rigging the market.

Think about your biggest financial challenges. Many of them are the direct result of public policy.

Houses unaffordable? The Treasury is stoking an unsustainable house price bubble.

Fuel bills going up? The Government is shutting power stations, and subsidising eye-wateringly expensive nuclear energy.

Broadband too dear? BT Openreach has a State-backed monopoly on the infrastructure.

No pay rise in years? Corporate tax credits and open-door immigration have let Big Business keep wages down.

Actually tackling inequality entails confronting vested interests. It requires overturning the certainties of both the corporatist right, and the redistributionist left.

The Labour party has no new ideas. I don't believe the Conservative party is capable of delivering change either – that's why I left it.

The radical agenda for progress is waiting to be seized. I hope UKIP takes it up.


13 JUL 2016

There's no justification for more candy-floss credit

The markets are up. The pound is rallying. The threat of big companies leaving Brexit Britain is evaporating. George Osborne's dream of economic Armageddon isn't happening. So why is Mark Carney about to cut interest rates?

In response to the referendum, the Governor of the Bank of England is promising more monetary stimulus. But why do we need it? Three weeks on, markets have already returned to normal.

That's not to say there aren't risks to the British economy. There are. They're just the same risks we were facing before the referendum: an unsustainable housing bubble; zombie banks; and far too much debt.

The problem is that interest rates have been too low for too long. Pension funds are being punished to prop up house prices. Capital isn't going where it's needed to increase productivity and sustain growth. To fix our economy, it needs to be weaned off credit.

But instead, the Bank of England is proposing to do the opposite. It looks to be planning more subsidy for banks. More house price inflation. Even lower interest rates, leaving pension funds even deeper in the red.

The real reason for cutting rates now may have more to do with China than Britain.

China recently devalued the renminbi, in an artificial bid to make its exports more competitive. It's fighting a currency war. As the Telegraph's Liam Halligan argues, Mark Carney may be following suit.

Printing money won't make us richer. Our economy will suffer because of it. But it's got nothing to do with Brexit.


12 JUL 2016

How to build the new Brexit consensus

Theresa May will be Prime Minister by tomorrow. She was a Remainer, but she has made clear Brexit means Brexit. No backsliding. No backdoor membership. No second referendum.

Many Leavers would have preferred to see a committed Brexiteer in charge. But the truth is any new PM would have faced the task of building a broad coalition behind Brexit. That coalition must include Remainers.

I believe many Remainers are interested in working with us to make Brexit a success. Our job is to reach out to them.

So how do we do it?

First, we have to keep our promises – starting with the status of EU nationals already living legally in the UK.

Both UKIP and Vote Leave have consistently maintained that EU nationals legally resident here before the referendum should have the indefinite right to remain. We need to allay their fears, and stick to our commitment.

Second, we need to put the outward-looking, optimistic outlook we upheld during the campaign into practice.

Let's welcome the offers Britain has already received from Australia, New Zealand, the USA and others to strike new trade deals. And let's keep working together, as good neighbours, with our European allies.

Third, we should find ways to reassure the most concerned sectors of our society and our economy.

Universities, for example, are worried about losing access to EU research collaborations and exchange programmes. But Britain doesn't need to be an EU member to participate in these schemes. Non-EU Israel participates in Horizon 2020. Non-EU Turkey is part of ERASMUS.

Leaving the EU doesn't mean losing positive bilateral UK-EU cooperation. We, on the Leave side, should push to make sure we keep it.

All the pre-referendum Remain rhetoric about post-Brexit British isolation has already been ditched. Angela Merkel has said she wants a good deal. Even George Osborne is making the case that Britain is open for business.

A new post-Brexit consensus is emerging. Let's help to build it.


11 JUL 2016

Remain rage needs to stop

Two weeks since the referendum, some on the Remain side still can't seem to accept the result. People who preach openness and respect now tell us – without irony - that over 17 million Leave voters are so gullible, stupid, and racist that their votes shouldn't count. This is divisive and dangerous. There has to be a better approach.

The minority who voted to Remain was undeniably large. But it was, nonetheless, a minority. The mandate from the majority was clear. Leave means Leave.

That doesn't mean, however, that the 48% should be ignored. We need to reach out to Remainers to bring as many people as possible with us as we negotiate our exit from the EU. I believe there is the will on the Leave side to do so – but it has to be reciprocated.

For some Remainers to make out that Leave voters were systematically deceived, or incapable of making an informed decision is simply a disgraceful attempt to subvert our democracy. The choice was clear from the outset.

We consistently campaigned for a new relationship between an independent Britain and the EU, based on continued tariff-free trade without continued free movement of people. That is what the majority voted for. That is the mandate for the next government to deliver.

The referendum campaign was emotionally charged, and the reaction to the result was bound to be too. But, now that some time has passed, level heads need to prevail. The campaign is over. We should now be focused on delivering the mandate from the electorate.

Bickering and recriminations will get us nowhere. The best outcome for Britain will come from a new national consensus around Brexit. I hope some Remainers will join us to build it.


08 JUL 2016

British politics is ripe for renewal

It's extraordinary how Britain's political establishment has been turned upside down. David Cameron's lame-duck government is pointless. Chilcot has taken Tony Blair to task. Labour is in crisis. Even the Greens are holding a leadership contest.

We're witnessing the decapitation of a political class – and it's exactly what Britain needs.

For years, this country has been governed by a cosy clique. In recent decades, there has been nothing to choose between the big parties. Too many assumptions have gone unchallenged – from the size of the State, to monetary policy, to immigration.

Parliament, which once facilitated a contest between different visions, has collapsed into a narrow technocratic consensus. As the referendum revealed, the real dividing line in British politics today isn't between parties. It's between the Westminster bubble and the electorate.

It's fashionable in certain parts of the commentariat to bemoan the "uncertainty" of the current political climate. Many seem to want this exceptional period to end as soon as possible.

I think that attitude is a mistake. This is the first chance Britain has had in decades to have a genuine, wide-ranging political debate. We shouldn't be afraid of it. We should be embracing it.

The political class now has a rare moment to pause and reflect. To challenge failed political orthodoxies, and present alternatives. To stop imposing ideology on the country from the top down, and start listening to what British citizens actually want.

This could be the start of a political renaissance. Let's not squander the opportunity.


07 JUL 2016

Credit - not Brexit - is the economic threat

Project Fear has predictably proved overblown. Yes, sterling has fallen against the dollar. But the FTSE 100 is now over 3% higher than it was before the vote. UK gilt yields have hit new lows. Investors aren't deserting Britain.

Across the Channel, though, it's a different story. The CAC 40 – France's top share index – is down over 7% since June 23rd. So is Germany's Dax 30. Italy's FTSE MIB has fallen 14%.

More worrying is what's happening to Europe's financial sector. Italy is facing a full-blown banking crisis. Deutschebank's share price has been in freefall for almost a year.

Corporate elites have been quick to blame British voters. But why should Brexit affect Eurozone banks and markets more than British ones? It's not a credible argument.

The truth is there are systemic problems with the global banking system. We didn't suddenly create them two weeks ago.

The real source of instability is something I've been writing about for years: dangerously loose monetary policy.

Ever since the Greenspan Put in the 1980s, central banks the world over have been flooding economies with cheap credit. The aim has always been to prevent economic slowdown. The result has always been the opposite.

By manipulating the price of capital, the real value of assets was obscured. Stock and property markets became bubbles. The world's biggest banks ended up overleveraged, overexposed, and ultimately insolvent – as we found out in 2008.

Policymakers assure us the banking system has been fixed. In reality, nothing has changed. Six months ago, UKIP in Parliament published a policy paper predicting another European banking collapse. Now we've been proved right.

Brexit isn't to blame for the failure of global finance. Monetary policy is. Another financial crisis is inevitable. This time, let's get the cause right.


16 JUN 2016

We won't be bullied by George Osborne

George Osborne is threatening to punish us if we vote Leave. He says he'll raise taxes and cut spending if we don't vote the way he wants. Are we going to stand for this appalling attempt at intimidation, or stand up to him?

Like many on the Remain side, the Chancellor seems to have forgotten he doesn't have a divine right to rule. Instead of taking his mandate from the people, he thinks he has the right to impose his will on us.

The Chancellor's vindictive threat is the lowest point in an astonishingly nasty campaign. Neither he nor the Prime Minister have made a positive case for Remain. Unable to persuade people of what they don't really believe themselves, they have resorted to bullying the electorate.

Using tax-raising powers as a weapon against the voters ought to be unthinkable in a democracy. It shows, once again, the contempt our ruling classes have for the people.

But don't panic: unlike George's unelected friends in Brussels, we have the means of holding him to account.

Along with dozens of other MPs, I've already signed a petition making it clear we'll vote down a blackmail budget.

George Osborne says he'll get it through with Labour support. Good luck with that. Yesterday Jeremy Corbyn confirmed to the House his party won't back any post-Brexit austerity.

The Chancellor's threat exemplifies the risk of trusting elites to act in our best interests. Prosperity for the British people comes from taking back control.


15 JUN 2016

Let's stop bankrolling the Brussels gravy train

The EU has admitted spending six-figure sums on private jets and five-star hotels for Euro elites. Who seriously believes we're better off funding their extravagance than taking back control of our money?

The Brussels gravy train is no myth – as our EU Rich List revealed a few months ago.

Eurocrats don't just earn more, get bigger pensions, and claim better benefits than the taxpayers who pay their salaries. They also pay far less tax themselves.

Our research showed the special discounted rate means the top EU officials each pay £50,000 less tax on average than they would in the UK.

The Remain campaign has spent a lot of time quibbling about precisely how vast Britain's EU membership fee is. Surely the focus should be on ensuring taxpayers' money is spent properly.

Britain is the second-highest net contributor to the EU. We put in nearly double what we get back – and what we get back, we don't control.

Why should British taxpayers, who've suffered cuts to public services at home, have to pay for largesse in Brussels? It's a trade-off that makes no sense.

When youth unemployment, austerity, and economic stagnation are the norm across the much of southern Europe, the fact that Euro elites are living in luxury at taxpayers' expense is disgraceful. It shows just how out of touch the EU's ruling classes are.

Taking back control can only make us better off.


14 JUN 2016

Western civilisation is what we're fighting for

Donald Tusk, one of the EU's five unelected, unaccountable presidents, says Brexit will mean the end of "Western political civilisation." Marie Antoinette had a better sense of irony.

The essence of Western civilisation is liberal democracy. Individual rights, dispersed power, and the rule of law made the West prosperous.

The political model that traces its roots to ancient Greece has proved so successful, it is now copied in capitals from Seoul to Santiago.

Across the Western world, there's only one political entity rejecting the principles on which the West was built. I'll give you a clue: it's the one that employs five presidents.

Mr. Tusk is a good example of the EU's contempt for democracy. We never voted for him. We can't remove him. The constitution that created his position was expressly rejected by many of the people over whom he presides, but implemented anyway.

But there's another Western political innovation the EU opposes even more: national self-determination.

A couple of months ago, I visited Świdnica, Clacton's twin in Mr. Tusk's native Poland. Its top attraction is the Church of the Peace, which commemorates the Peace of Westphalia – the treaties that created the system of sovereign nation states which underpins modern international law.

Peaceful cooperation between independent, self-governing nation states is no dream. It's increasingly the global norm. If we vote Leave, we'll be able to strike new trade deals with countries beyond Europe's borders not in spite of our independence, but because of it.

Look at the mess unfolding across the Channel. The mass youth unemployment. The migrant crisis. Growing animosity between north and south. Who really believes European federalism is keeping the peace?

On the Leave side, we're campaigning to take back the democratic, national self-determination that made the West exceptional. The risk is giving it away.


13 JUN 2016

Why Remain won't make a positive case

We've seen their scare stories. We've heard their warnings to trust the experts. We've witnessed their personal attacks against people on our side. But we still haven't heard a positive argument to vote Remain. Why?

Ten days out from the referendum, it's pretty remarkable that the Remainers haven't presented the people with one good reason to believe in the European project. Instead of trying to persuade, they have consistently resorted to manipulation.

First, they pretended the Prime Minister had renegotiated our relationship with the EU. But the public didn't buy it.

Then, they made out our economy would collapse and World War III would break out the moment Britain voted to leave. But people saw through that too.

Now they have resorted to insulting the Leavers. I lost track of how many cheap shots Team Remain aimed at Boris Johnson in last week's ITV debate. Yet snap surveys afterward showed viewers weren't sold on that either.

The Remain campaign has been an insult to the electorate's intelligence. As a tactic, that doesn't seem to have paid off.

But what if it's not a tactic?

Some Remainers genuinely appear to believe that voters can't be trusted to look after their own interests. The EU will stop Britain's nasty government doing what it was elected to do, Nicola Sturgeon told us. Most MPs want to vote Remain, said unelected Pensions Minister Ros Altmann, so why should the public get a say?

They seem to support Britain's EU membership not in spite of the fact it keeps power away from the people, but because of it.

Ruling elites have always despised democracy. The people have always benefitted from it. Don't be duped by their deception. Britain will be better off with the public in power.


10 JUN 2016

Reality is puncturing Project Fear

JCB Chairman Lord Bamford is the latest businessman to say there is nothing to fear from Brexit. Official stats show British manufacturing and trade isn't slowing. So why is our Government talking Britain down?

The Remain campaign's scare stories don't reflect what's happening in the real economy.

The latest trade stats, which show the UK is running a record trade deficit with EU countries, prove there is a greater incentive than ever for our European neighbours to keep trading freely with Britain whatever the result of the referendum.

Meanwhile, exports of goods to non-EU countries rose to a record £14 billion. The ONS points out that the share of British exports going to EU countries "has fallen by more than 10 percentage points over the last 15 years."

The facts don't lie: Britain's trading future is global.

At the same time, the latest manufacturing figures show output rose 2.3% in April – driven by exports. It's the largest rise since 2012. So much for George Osborne's great referendum recession.

Normally Prime Ministers are thrilled about exports and output rising. Instead, all we have heard from David Cameron is doom and gloom. In his desperation to win this referendum, he is willing to sell Britain short.

On ITV the other day, the PM made out that those of us who want Britain to leave the EU are unpatriotic. What exactly is patriotic about insulting the country you lead?

If there were a positive argument for Remain, we'd have heard it by now. The best the Remainers can do is deliberately misrepresent how strong this country is. That's a remarkably poor case.


09 JUN 2016

Give select committees genuine power

Until recently, a certain kind of pundit was dismissive about select committees. Not anymore.

The extraordinary revelations about Sports Direct and BHS this week have shown how effective Parliamentary select committees can be. Just imagine what they could do if they had some real clout.

One of the fundamental roles of Parliament is to keep the Government in check. But - unsurprisingly – Governments have progressively taken away its power to do so.

Take the most important piece of legislation every year: the Budget.

Until the 1930s, individual MPs had the right to amend the Budget. But today, hundreds of billions of pounds just go through on the nod. Spending – and debt - keeps increasing because there is no one to keep it in check.

But select committees could give Parliament the means to serve its purpose. Instead of merely holding business leaders to account, they should be empowered to do the same for Government.

Select committees should have the right to veto major public appointments in confirmation hearings, and dismiss officials if they're not up to scratch. They should also be able to amend and block the budgets of every Government department.

Too radical? I'm not the only one to advocate much greater powers for select committees. Five years ago, Parliament's Liaison Committee put a similar case to the Government. Have a guess whether the Government accepted their recommendations.

We won't get effective government with a toothless legislature. Select committees have proved their worth. Now let's empower them.


08 JUN 2016

The Remain mask has slipped

Several pro-EU MPs imagine they can just ignore the result of the referendum if they lose. Who do these people think they are?

Some of my Commons colleagues seem to have forgotten that our mandate comes from the people. Rather than citizen lawmakers who take their orders from the voters, they're behaving like seventeenth-century princelings with a divine right to rule.

Be in no doubt: Leave means Leave. Whatever happens in the referendum, the Government will have to abide by the result.

But this episode is revealing. It lays bare the contempt Europhile elites feel for democracy.

The ruling classes think they know what's best for the rest of us. That's why they like to centralise power in unaccountable bureaucracies like the European Commission.

Brussels gives politicians who've lost the people's trust – think Peter Mandelson – the opportunity to rule us without tiresome nuisances like elections.

Now the elites are panicking, as this desperate stitch-up attempt testifies. From the Prime Minister down, they're realising voters aren't buying their fraudulent fearmongering.

Across Britain, people are starting to see that they don't have to be ruled by the crony corporatist cartel that presided over the Eurozone debt disaster and the migrant crisis. Britain really can do better.

This referendum is Britain's one chance to break free from the Euro-oligarchy. On June 23rd, we can take back democratic control from our incompetent overlords. Let's put the princeling pretenders back in their place.


07 JUN 2016

Mass emigration shows the EU is an economic failure

"Leaving the EU will cause a global recession," runs Downing Street's laughable scare story. Let's be serious. If the EU is such an economic success, why are millions of EU migrants looking for work here?

European integration has been an economic disaster. The EU is the world's only declining trade bloc. The euro – which many Remainers once said we couldn't live without – has brought nothing but debt crises, austerity, and stagnation.

Young Portuguese, Spanish, Italian, and even French nationals are increasingly looking for work here to escape sky-high unemployment at home.

But picking up the slack for the Eurocrats' economic mismanagement comes with costs for us.

Britain takes in a city the size of Oxford just from the EU every year. That makes it more difficult for young people to buy their first home. For parents to get their kids into the school they want. For old people to get the care they need.

We're also on the hook for more Eurozone bailouts. In fact, we may have to cough up another £2.4 billion just to plug the EU's budget black hole.

If we leave the EU, we'll be able to increase our trade with the rest of the world, and build a points-based immigration system. Controlling our trade policy will create hundreds of thousands of jobs. Controlling our borders will relieve the pressure on our public services.

Tying our future to the failed European project is the high-risk option.


06 JUN 2016

Beware the "expert consensus"

There's a strong economic case for Brexit. It's based on more free trade, and less rule-rigging by corporations. We've heard all the Remain appeals to the "expert consensus." But what's their actual economic argument?

As the IEA's Ryan Bourne points out, all we've heard from the Remain side – apart from outlandish scaremongering - is appeals to authority. Instead of presenting the issues, they expect us to trust the "experts" to get it right.

The trouble is, when you look at the assumptions underlying the so-called experts' economic models, they're faulty. Their picture of Britain after Brexit is based on the premise that there will be less free trade.

That's simply false.

If we leave the EU, we'll still be part of the tariff-free trade zone that extends from non-EU Iceland to the Russian border. But, no longer subject to the EU's external trade barriers, we'll also get better access to global markets.

Leaving the EU means more free trade, not less. Which is why economists, corporate captains, small businesses, top investors and former Chancellors are all making the case to Leave. So much for the consensus.

Many of Remain's "experts" were wrong about the euro. Some directly benefit from the EU's lobbyist-friendly regulatory regime. Several owe their positions to George Osborne. Infallibility and integrity can't just be taken on trust.

But the real issue isn't with who they are, but what they're arguing. False premises produce false conclusions.

We only need to look across the Channel to see that something is seriously awry with economies across the EU. Trust the evidence of your eyes.


03 JUN 2016

Influence? What influence?

Angela Merkel claims Britain won't have "influence" on the EU after Brexit. In that case, we've got nothing to lose by voting to Leave.

The idea that Britain exerts genuine influence over the EU is a myth.

In the Council of Ministers, no country is more regularly outvoted. Britain has opposed EU legislation on 70 occasions, and lost every single time.

In the European Parliament, the largest British party is UKIP. That hasn't stopped the march toward federalism.

David Cameron couldn't even stop fanatical federalist Jean-Claude Juncker from becoming President of the European Commission – thanks to one Angela Merkel.

Britain doesn't need the EU to have clout on the world stage. We're the world's fourth largest military spender. The fifth largest economy. A permanent member of the UN Security Council. Just yesterday, Britain – not the EU – was pushing the UN to coordinate aid drops for Syrian civilians under fire.

As a trading power, we'll regain influence through leaving the EU, by resuming our seat at the table that matters: the World Trade Organisation.

We haven't gained any influence by joining the EU. We've just lost control. Only by leaving the EU will the British people have the power to choose their lawmakers and kick out their government. Isn't that the influence that counts?


02 JUN 2016

The EU can never be reformed

This week, William Hague claimed if we vote Remain the EU can be reformed. What does he think every UK government has tried and failed to do for the past 40 years?

Wasn't that what David Cameron's 'renegotiation' was meant to achieve?

If the Eurocrats won't concede any real reform when our membership is at stake, what do you think we'll get if we meekly submit and vote to stay?

If we vote to Remain, there will be risks. A failed Eurozone, massive EU unemployment, mass migration, and more.

Not being in the EU means being like most countries in the world – most of whom grow faster than those inside the EU.


01 JUN 2016

There's nothing progressive about the EU

What's more progressive? Keeping the status quo for fear of change? Or accepting that, when the world changes, the way we are governed has to adapt?

When Britain joined the Common Market 40 years ago, the world was dominated by massive power blocs. Eastern Europe was cut off from the world behind the Iron Curtain. Joining a Western European trading bloc seemed like a good idea.

But today, the circumstances that made us join the Common Market no longer exist.

The Soviet Union has collapsed. China, though still a nominally Communist country, has swapped autarky for globalisation. International trade is now governed by the World Trade Organisation, which prevents protectionism. Free trade is the global norm.

Today, the world's best economic performers are often not the biggest players, but the smallest. South Korea is now a manufacturing powerhouse. Tiny Israel is a high-tech pioneer. City-state Singapore is a financial hub. Everything has changed.

Everything, that is, except the EU. As the rest of the world has opened up, globalising trade and localising power, the EU has done the opposite.

Trade barriers and preferential subsidies keep our consumer prices artificially high. Power is increasingly centralised in unelected, unaccountable Eurocrats, whose endless stream of one-size-fits all regulation – compounding the disastrous single currency - makes EU economies ever more uncompetitive.

In fact, the EU isn't just out of date. It's actively retrograde.

In recent decades, we cheered as Spain, Portugal, and ex-Communist countries across Eastern Europe made the transition from dictatorship to democracy. 

Yet the EU has imposed austerity on Greece, a new government on Italy, and a constitution on every member state - all without any consent from the people. It is deliberately reversing democracy in Europe.

Today, successful countries embrace global free trade. They recognise that individual liberty and democracy make progress and prosperity possible.

In the modern, globalised world, the EU is obsolete. Right-on Remainers are really reactionaries. The progressive choice is to vote Leave.


31 MAY 2016

Join tonight's Vote Leave rally in Hammersmith!

I'm teaming up with Dan Hannan, Graham Stringer, and Lord Owen tonight for a Vote Leave rally in Hammersmith. Get your free ticket here!

Our rally shows the breadth of the support for Leave: four speakers representing four different parties, united by our commitment to democracy.

Amid the scandalous scaremongering from the other side, it's easy to forget that what we're campaigning for is so uncontroversial.

Democratic, national self-determination is the settled norm across the Western world. It's what made Britain prosperous. The extreme choice is to give it up to unaccountable foreign elites.

I believe we're going to win this referendum. But we need your help.

Downing Street, Whitehall, and Brussels are marshalling the full resources of the bureaucratic machine against us.

To beat them, we need to build on the fantastic grassroots support I have already seen across the country, and mobilise an army of activists for Leave.

We have one chance to escape the EU. We have less than a month to do it.

If you're in London on Tuesday, please sign up to our rally, bring your friends, and join the fight for freedom.


27 MAY 2016

Immigration is a symbol of lost control

New figures show that last year 270,000 people came to settle in Britain just from the EU. Under a government that got elected on the promise to reduce total immigration to the tens of thousands. Immigration is a symbol of lost democratic control.

Taking in a city the size of Oxford every year is building pressure on GPs, hospitals, and schools. It's intensifying our housing shortage. It's not sustainable.

But the bigger issue is what it represents: the supremacy of EU law; the powerlessness of Parliament; the irrelevance of elections. No government can control immigration when the EU controls our immigration policy.

Increasingly, the way we vote changes the people in office, but not the people in power. EU bureaucrats and judges make many of our laws, but we have no mechanism to hold them to account, or kick them out.

Democracy isn't a romantic ideal. It's a safeguard. It makes sure that the interests of the government align with the interests of the people.

As EU members, we don't have that safeguard. A majority of British voters may want controlled immigration, but the Eurocrats don't – and it's their will that counts.

If we stay in the EU, we will continue to be governed by people who don't have our interests at heart. There's no greater political risk than that.


26 MAY 2016

Independence keeps Britain safe

Britain is among the top five military spenders in the world. We're a permanent member of the UN Security Council. We're the second power in NATO, behind the USA.

Our independent military power is what keeps us safe. But – as a dozen top ex-generals made clear yesterday – that's what's at risk if we stay in the EU.

Even the Remainers-in-chief can't deny that independence is the main thing keeping Britain secure. Asked about Trident at PMQs yesterday, George Osborne said: "For almost 70 years, our independent nuclear deterrent has provided the ultimate insurance for our freedom."

Which begs the question: why is he campaigning to give our military independence up?

It's no secret that the EU wants to create its own military to replace national defence forces. Angela Merkel has said it. Jean-Claude Juncker has said it. It's the obvious next step for 'ever-closer union.'

If we stay in the EU, we risk losing control of our defence forces. That won't just make Britain less safe, but Europe too.

Yesterday a group of British former generals launched the Veterans for Britain campaign to vote Leave. They made the point that Britain helps keep Europe safe, not the other way round.

After World War II, Europe was divided against itself along the Iron Curtain. Britain was the major NATO power this side of the Atlantic fighting to contain Communism. NATO, not the EU, kept the Soviets from invading Western Europe.

Today, the USSR may have collapsed, but our military standing hasn't. Britain and France are still the only countries in the EU capable of power projection. Through the Five Eyes agreement, we are still the EU's top intelligence-gathering power.

If we vote Leave, we'll still cooperate militarily with France – that's guaranteed by several bilateral treaties. We'll still use our top-class intelligence to help our European neighbours.

Why risk our military independence by voting Remain?


25 MAY 2016

The high-risk choice is George

Who should you trust more? Thousands of personal investors who risk their own money in the marketplace? Or the career politician who doubled our national debt in six years?

The Share Centre's new survey of 1,800 personal investors poll shows 56% support Leave, compared to 39% for Remain. 53% believe Brexit will have a positive impact on Britain.

Let's put this in perspective. These are people who invest their own money. They have a personal interest in Britain's prosperity. They have no ulterior motive.

On the other side is George Osborne.

The Chancellor who broke his promise to balance the books. Who spends other people's money without worrying how future generations will pay it back. Who fills every budget with tricks and gimmicks designed to bamboozle the British people.

Oh – and whose career depends on the result of this referendum.

Who's more credible?

Trusting the Downing Street doomsayers means turning a blind eye to the real economic effects of European integration.

To believe that the EU brings economic prosperity, we would need to pretend there was no never-ending debt crisis in Greece. No permanent youth unemployment in Spain. No stagnation across the Eurozone.

We're better off than our neighbours on the Continent today mainly because we didn't join the disastrous single currency. The lesson is the less Europe, the better.

Under national self-determination, Britain went from backwater to industrial powerhouse.

Under the EU, Europe has gone from world-leader to the world's only declining trading bloc.

The high-risk option is to ignore the evidence in front of us. Britain will be better off out.


24 MAY 2016

Business isn't buying Brexpocalypse

'British Big Business wants to stay in the EU,' briefs the Downing Street spin machine. Slight snag: the latest survey of FTSE 350 companies shows the opposite.

ICSA's new poll records a big drop in support for the EU. In their last poll in December, 61% of businesses said the EU positively impacted their business. Now that's fallen to 37%.

Barely half of boardrooms have even considered the impact of Brexit on their business, while only 43% see any downside risk. In fact, of all the things boardrooms are worried about, political risk is bottom of the list.

The survey shows up the Downing Street scare stories for the sham they are. If Britain's corporate captains don't believe in George Osborne's Brexpocalypse, why should anyone else?

Perhaps the most interesting finding in the poll, though, is that the top governance issue for businesses is over-regulation and pointless compliance. In that light, is it any wonder they're not the biggest fans of the European Commission?

The EU's trigger-happy approach to regulation (see Brexit the Movie) is holding our economy back. Open Europe estimates that it costs British business £600 million a week.

For most British companies, there's not even any benefit attached. Only 6% of British businesses export to the EU. There's no reason why the other 94% needs to be tied up in EU red tape.

Our economic growth depends on a dynamic private sector. We should be taking down the barriers to creativity, entrepreneurship, and trade that are stifling our businesses. As EU members, we can't do that.

To set our companies free from EU regulation, we need to set our country free. British business will boom if we vote Leave and take back control.


23 MAY 2016

Osborne the oracle?

Today George Osborne tells us to trust Treasury economists predicting a recession if we vote Leave. Would these be the same Treasury economists who in 2006 predicted 3% annual growth in 2007, 2008, and 2009 – during what turned out to be the worst recession in recent history?

George Osborne set up the Office for Budget Responsibility in 2010 precisely because Treasury forecasts can't be trusted.

Not that the OBR has been any more reliable. Lest we forget, here are some of George's previous predictions proved wrong:

  • In the 2010 emergency budget, he forecast the elimination of the budget deficit by 2015. In fact, we borrowed £74 billion last year. Now he says the books won't be balanced until 2020.
  • In the 2011 budget, he told us growth would strengthen. In reality, we only nominally avoided a double dip recession.
  • In the 2015 Autumn Statement, he found an extra £27 billion for the public finances – revising predictions from his 2015 emergency budget only a few months before. Then, in the 2016 budget, he revised it back again.

If we trusted all of George Osborne's predictions, we'd have to believe that the economy is simultaneously growing and contracting. That borrowing is both rising and falling. That the economy is in fantastic health and at the same time falling apart.

The Chancellor's predictions aren't just false. They're logically impossible.

But the latest Treasury figures are worse than that. Unlike the OBR's figures, they're not remotely independent. They reflect the political priorities of a man who sees everything as a political opportunity.

Underneath the bogus forecasts, the only genuine prediction George is making is that Brexit will bad for his career. Let's not allow that to distract us from what's best for Britain.


20 MAY 2016

Still undecided? Read Why Vote Leave!

Are you one of the millions of voters still undecided about the referendum? Are you waiting to hear a convincing case? Well don't panic! Read Dan Hannan's brilliant Why Vote Leave.

With characteristic eloquence, Hannan explains how the European project failed, why it can't succeed, and what Britain has to look forward to if we vote Leave, and take back control.

Here's a quick taste - first of all on what to expect if we stay:

  • Economic decline: "One of the reasons that the EU is stagnating while other advanced economies grow is because cronyism and protectionism flourish in the necessarily undemocratic Brussels institutions."
  • Oligarchy: "The democratic deficit isn't an accidental design flaw; it is intrinsic to the whole project."
  • Corporatism: "Lobbyists love the EU, intuiting from the moment they arrive that it was designed by and for people like them."
  • Powerlessness: "The UK has voted against an EU legislative proposal seventy times. She has lost the vote seventy times. No other country is so regularly isolated and outvoted."
  • High risk: "A vote to stay will be a vote to be part of the continuing political, fiscal, and military integration of the EU. As we see that the euro and migration crises are deteriorating, that future can hardly be called risk-averse."

Alternatively, here's what we'll gain if we vote Leave:

  • Lower taxes: Saving £19.6 billion a year in EU fees "would allow the entire country to get a 71% rebate in council tax."
  • Less austerity: Between 2010 and 2015, "our gross contribution to the EU was £86 billion – more than twice as much as was saved by the austerity programme."
  • More trade: "We'll recover our parliamentary sovereignty and, with it, the ability to sign bilateral trade agreements with non-EU countries."
  • Greater prosperity: "The strongest case for voting leave is that it offers a better future... We'd be better off in the literal, financial sense."
  • Control: "Britain would reassert the primacy of her own laws on her own soil... She would recover her seat at the global top tables."

Need more convincing? Get a copy!


19 MAY 2016

The EU makes the Queen's Speech meaningless

The Queen's speech is meant to tell us what new laws to expect. But wasn't something missing?

Many of the new laws we'll be subject to this year weren't announced yesterday, or included in any manifesto, or voted on by the British people. Instead, they'll be made behind closed doors in Brussels.

The State Opening is meant to be the day Parliament asserts its authority. When the door is slammed on Black Rod, it's supposed to show Britain's laws are made by the people's elected representatives. The message is that sovereignty resides with the Queen in Parliament.

Except, in reality, it doesn't. Our laws aren't all made by people we elect. Our Supreme Court isn't actually supreme. Our democracy is subservient to EU law and EU courts.

Today, a large proportion of our laws are written by unelected bureaucrats at the European Commission – people no one ever elected. They're rubber-stamped by MEPs – people few voters even recognise, let alone cast ballots for. They're signed off by the Council of Ministers – where the UK has opposed 72 laws, and been outvoted every single time.

What happens if Parliament's law conflicts with the EU's? Ours can be struck down in court by unelected judges. Until we joined the EU, that was constitutionally impossible.

Four centuries ago, Britain fought a civil war over the right of Parliament to make our laws and set our taxes. Then, people saw that surrendering that right was a licence for tyranny. Yet, since 1975, we have given it up willingly to the EU.

Nothing to worry about? Rule by unaccountable Euro elites isn't always benign. Just ask the Greeks.

The EU makes yesterday's ceremony meaningless. There's no longer substance behind the ritual. Beneath the pomp and circumstance, Parliament is powerless.

Surrendering sovereignty isn't safe. Our rights, our freedom, and our security depend on our democracy. Want to keep them? Vote Leave, and take back control.


18 MAY 2016

If Remain had a good case, they wouldn't need to deceive us

"If we cannot secure these changes, I rule nothing out." That's what the PM told Parliament back in February about his EU 'renegotiation'. Now we know he was crossing his fingers. Even then, he was privately plotting with Big Business to campaign to remain.

The PM's leaked letter to Rupert Soames shows he was never negotiating in good faith. He got no reform from the EU, because he asked for none. In return for his collusion, the Commission - along with big corporate vested interests - is bankrolling the Remain campaign.

This stitch-up encapsulates everything that's wrong with the EU. Crony corporatism. Disdain for democracy. Contempt for the people. Government of elites, by elites, for elites.

In previous referenda, when the people have given the 'wrong' answer, Euro elites have ignored the result. This time, they've tried to rig it from the start.

"We're all better off in," the Remainers claim.

If that's true, why did the PM keep Parliament in the dark?

Why is European taxpayers' money being used to get round campaign finance restrictions?

Why, instead of a positive case for the EU, do we only ever hear threats and scare stories?

If there were a good reason to remain, we wouldn't need to be hoodwinked.


17 MAY 2016

On the road to independence!

I'm on the Vote Leave battle bus today. We're making the case for Brexit across the West Midlands. If you're nearby, come and show your support!

Travelling around Britain over the campaign so far, I've seen unbelievable support for Leave. Vote Leave banners are popping up in windows, on cars, and by railways. Volunteers are leafletting in every town centre. Eurosceptics are uniting across the country.

There's a long way to go, but we really can win this.

Just the fact that there is so much support shows how disingenuous the other side has been. If you listened to Remainers, you'd think everyone in Britain was on their side. All the business leaders back the EU, they tell us. All the investors. All the educated classes. All the experts.

But it's a fiction. More and more business leaders are supporting Leave – small businesses especially. So are top entrepreneurs and economists. Don't tell Karren Brady, but even football managers are backing Brexit.

The Remainers don't get why the polls aren't moving in their direction. George Osborne has called in all his favours. IMF staffers have fabricated their most outlandish statistics. Even President Obama has made a cameo. Yet nothing has worked.

The reason is simple. EU interference affects every aspect of our lives. Millions of people know they'd be better off out, because the EU makes their lives more difficult every day. They don't need to be patronised into submission by Establishment elites.

Six weeks out from the referendum, we're on the road to Brexit. One last push and we'll make it happen. We still need your support. Join the growing campaign to take back control.


16 MAY 2016

How Brexit will make you better off

"How does the EU affect me and my family?" It's a question I hear a lot on the campaign trail. With six weeks to go until the referendum, lots of people still feel they don't know how it will affect their lives.

So here are some concrete ways voting Leave will make you better off:

  • Better public services. Every week, Britain hands over control of £350 million to the EU. That's enough to build over 50 new hospitals a year. If we vote Leave, we'll be able to spend our money on our priorities.
  • Higher wages. Uncontrolled immigration from the EU has depressed wages, especially in the lowest-paid jobs. If we vote Leave, we'll be able to control immigration, so pay will go up. Even the leader of the Remain campaign admits that.
  • New jobs. EU red tape costs British businesses £600 million a week. If we vote Leave, we can set our businesses free, creating jobs in the process.
  • Cheaper energy. EU energy rules have forced Britain to shut power stations and pushed up our bills. If we vote Leave, we can cut regulation, and cut our costs.
  • Lower prices. EU tariffs make imports from the rest of the world artificially expensive. If we vote Leave, we'll still have access to the European Single Market, but we won't face tariffs, and we'll make new trade deals with non-EU countries. More free trade means lower prices.
  • Affordable homes. One reason so many young people can't afford to buy a home is the strain uncontrolled immigration from the EU puts on the housing market. If we vote Leave, we'll ease the pressure.
  • More security. The EU is a failed project. It can't manage its borders, its currency, or its economy. Giving unaccountable Eurocrats so much power over our lives is a huge risk. Voting Leave is the safer option.

We'll all be better off if we vote Leave and take back control.


13 MAY 2016

Remain 'experts' are reading from a lobbyist's script

Yesterday Mark Carney joined the parade of 'independent experts' warning us about the catastrophic consequences of Britain becoming a self-governing nation. Doesn't it all seem a bit too rehearsed?

Carney claims Brexit will cause a recession. He said this the day after new statistics showed that UK manufacturing is now in recession for the third time in 8 years.

Our manufacturing sector – like so much of Europe's economy – is being held back by red tape and high energy costs imposed on us by Brussels.

But there's a reason why the so-called experts are pretending otherwise.

Earlier this year, I attended a rather opulent summit for Anglo-French grandees. It was full of corporate captains and mandarins. There was lots of talk about how to derail Vote Leave. Almost alone, I argued Britain would be better off out.

During the discussion, Remain lobbyists appealed directly to the assembled grandees to help intimidate the public into voting the way they want.

"Warn them about the dire consequences of leaving," one suggested.

Mark Carney wasn't there that day, but other senior Bank of England officials were. Similar discussions have no doubt taken place at the Bank.

We're meant to think that all these 'experts' are speaking as independent authorities. In reality, they are part of an orchestrated attempt by Downing Street spin doctors to manipulate the public.

But this will be their undoing. At no point have the Remainers made a positive case for EU membership. They treat the public like small children. And the public doesn't like to be patronised.

If there were a positive case for Remain, we would have heard it from Mark Carney. Instead all we get is these bogus lines cooked up in collusion with Number 10.

Somehow I don't think Britain is going to come to heel this time.


12 MAY 2016

In Gordon we trust?

Britain can't make it outside the EU, says Gordon Brown. He's never been wrong before, right?

Lest we forget, here are some of Gordon's greatest mistakes:

  • Sold the gold. Gordon swapped Britain's gold reserves for euros when gold fetched less than $300 an ounce. Now it's worth nearly $1300 an ounce. That's a loss of some $13 billion to the taxpayer.
  • Doubled the national debt. Even without counting all the PFI and pension liabilities he hid off balance sheet.
  • Abolished boom and bust. He said he'd beaten the business cycle. Reality begged to differ...
  • Didn't spot the financial crisis. In 2008, Britain's biggest banks faced total collapse. The Chancellor never saw it coming.
  • Bailed out the banksters. The Brown bailout was one of the biggest transfers of wealth from the poor to the rich in British history – yet the banks are still as broken as before.
  • Never got elected PM. Gordon was handed the keys to Number 10 by Tony Blair, Labour's most successful PM ever, who won three successive elections. He couldn't win one.
  • Lost Labour Scotland. Labour used to be Scotland's dominant party. Today even Gordon's old constituency is an SNP stronghold.

Now Gordon Brown is taking a leading role in the Remain campaign. What could possibly go wrong?


11 MAY 2016

Vote Leave, raise wages

Remainers claim the EU is 'good for the economy'. Really?

Countries inside the EU's single market happen to be the ones performing less well.

Yesterday Iain Duncan Smith highlighted some of the costs that come from being in the EU: depressed wages, inflated house prices, overstretched public services.

The sort of people who fly club class at someone else's expense might like the project. It was, after all, built for and by people like them. Not everyone else gains.

As Britain came out of the last recession there was - for the first time ever - no rise in wages. Why? Perhaps the import of cheap labour had something to do with it?

Free movement from the EU affects house prices too. As demand rockets, prices have to rise. That's one of the reasons so many young people today can't afford to buy a home.

It also affects public services. The NHS is struggling to cope with the pace that demand is rising. The status quo isn't sustainable.

Elites are quick to sneer at the idea of controlling migration. "Little Englanders pulling up the drawbridge," they proclaim.

But no one in Vote Leave is talking about closing our borders. We simply want to control them. Like Australia, we want to be able to decide who comes, and with what skills.

Establishment Europhiles are indifferent to the effect of the EU on wages, because their salaries aren't affected.

If we vote Leave, wages will rise .... as even the leader of the Remain campaign has admitted.


10 MAY 2016

British business is backing Leave

The BCC's new referendum poll of British business is significant. It doesn't just demonstrate a marked shift towards Leave. It also shows that, among businesses that either trade domestically or only export to non-EU countries, Leave supporters are the majority.

Why is this so important?

Domestic traders and non-EU exporters represent 94% of British business. The BCC's overall result doesn't reflect this, because the survey is skewed towards EU exporters.

But the data tells the real story. The lion's share of British business, which doesn't trade with the EU, clearly wants Britain to leave.

Even those businesses that do sell to the EU increasingly recognise that access to the single market does not depend on being in the single market. There is tariff-free trade from Iceland to Turkey, even if we vote Leave.

No wonder the polls are moving in favour of Brexit.

 



10 MAY 2016

Desperate Remain is a smear campaign

Yesterday the Remainers were warning us Brexit would cause World War III. Now they're making out Boris Johnson is Putin's man in Uxbridge. I don't know if it's because we're level in the polls, but they're really getting desperate.

Boris Johnson's liberal case for Leave was a tour de force. Voting Leave, he argued, is the logical conclusion of David Cameron's own case for the reform he never got. If you value your freedom, he concluded, don't give it up to the Eurocrat elite.

Boris's speech was measured, reasoned, and sensible. The Remain response was anything but. Instead of trying to refute his arguments, they accused him of being an apologist for Vladimir Putin. Nowhere in Boris's speech was Putin mentioned. It's a pathetic smear.

Vladimir Putin is thoroughly reprehensible. Under his rule, Russia has regressed from a nascent liberal democracy to an authoritarian autocracy. He tyrannises his own people. What he has done in Ukraine is indefensible.

But here's the irony of the Remainers' smear campaign: if you care about containing Russian aggression, if you want a strong NATO, if you believe in Britain's national security, then the logical thing to do is to vote Leave.

If we stay in the EU, we will ultimately be forced into a pan-European army. That means giving up control of our military. And for what? Britain and France are the only two Western European countries capable of projecting force – and we already have bilateral military cooperation. Just like with the Common Fisheries, we have everything to lose, and nothing to gain.

The idea that subcontracting our national security to the European Commission makes us safer is patently absurd – and the British people can see it. That's why the Remain campaign is resorting to ad hominem abuse. They're losing the argument.


09 MAY 2016

Patronising the public will lose Cameron this referendum

First we were told Brexit could mean the end of the Premier League. Then they said it would destroy London's economy. Yesterday George Osborne told us house prices would collapse. Today David Cameron is predicting world war.

Intimidating the public into voting the way Downing Street wants might sound like a good idea late at night in Chequers. In the sunshine of a spring morning, it looks ridiculous.

I am increasingly confident that the Remain side are going to lose the referendum, and one of the reasons is because of the cackhanded way the Remain side are making their case.

At no point has anyone on the Remain side made a positive case for Britain being in the EU. "It's rubbish, but we need to remain" is their pitch.

Downing Street started off assuming that undecided voters would be bowled over by David Cameron's fabulous new deal. It turned out to be a damp squib.

The Remain side seems to assume the public is going to recoil at the supposed risks of voting to leave. It turns out that the public rather resent ministers talking down Britain.

It is a little hard to keep suggesting that the whole idea of self-government is far too complicated and risky, when you are the government.

Downing Street has badly misjudged the mood.

There is an honest, honourable case to be made for Britain's membership of the EU. It's not a view I share, but there are valid points to be made.

Instead of making them, the Downing Street clique are taking the electorate for fools, talking down at them. This endless succession of obviously bogus stories about the dire consequences of what will happen if we vote to leave is starting to grate.

Far from convincing undecided voters, it screams out at them that this is how the political elite think that you think. You can be patronised ("No more football"), lied to ("The price of your house will fall") and bamboozled ("All the experts say we must stay") into voting the way they want.

Yet the public know that there is nothing outlandishly risky, reckless, or irresponsible about wanting to be a self-governing country. If David Cameron has confidence in his case, why can't he make it honestly?

He doesn't. And every time he keeps patronising the punter, he declares it.


06 MAY 2016

Is this news .... or just a journalist's script?

When we watch the news, we are being shown what's going on, right? The journalist is giving us a report on how things are. Actually, no.

Since I became an MP, I've discovered that many "news" stories have actually been scripted by a producer. Sure, they want to tell a story. But their story does not always entail reporting the way things are.

First, a producer decides what story they want to tell. Then they cast around for people to say what they want said to camera. Again and again, producers will phone me to see if I'm willing to say something that tallies with the narrative.

They are not phoning round to establish and then report opinion. They have decided what needs to be said. Then pitch for folk to say it.

These efforts at casting are often comically absurd.

In the past 24 hours I had one TV journalist ask if I would come on to discuss the Conservative party's response to yesterday's elections. When I pointed out that I was a UKIP MP they paused, before saying they'd ring back. Presumably they'd forgotten to up date their list of disgruntled Tory backbenchers.

Next, a radio producer invited me to go on air to talk about Lord Dubs "as one of his well-known opponents".

Come again? I've never met Lord Dubs. Nor was I aware of my "well-known opposition" to him.

Of course, what the Guardianista producer meant is that they wanted someone to go on air and sound frightfully right wing and say lots of beastly things about the noble Lord. But they couldn't put it quite like that....

When filming in Poland recently, a deputy mayor waxed lyrically to me on camera about the need for his town to team up with a city in China. Far from disagreeing with the Brexit point of view, he said things that reinforced the idea that we should look to the wider world. Curiously his off script comments never made it through the editing process.

One of the reasons people are so disaffected with politics is because they regard politicians as bogus. But part of the reason politics looks bogus is the way the establishment media presents it.

The trouble is the public increasingly see through it. In America, the mainstream media are mistrusted just as much as the political class. The same thing has started to happen in Britain.

So here's an idea for the media moguls: why not report events as they are, not how your producers want to script them?


05 MAY 2016

Turkey's return to illiberalism should worry us

What has happened to Turkey? How has the country of Ataturk become the country of Erdogan? Turkey reflects a Middle East in cultural regress. But it's also an indictment of Western foreign policy.

Turkey once seemed to be moving towards liberal democracy. It enabled a secular culture to flourish. It joined NATO. It was an ally of the West in a Soviet-dominated region.

But today Turkey is moving towards Islamism and nationalism. Its president suppresses protest and press freedom while increasing his own power. It has been ambivalent over the crisis in Syria unfolding on its borders.

Turkey's retreat into illiberalism is sad. It's also alarming. Another Islamist power in the Middle East won't just make that region even less safe, but ours too.

Yet – incredibly - the EU is banking on Erdogan's Turkey to keep us safe.

Under the new deal rubber-stamped by the Eurocracy yesterday, the EU will pay Turkey billions, and give 75 million Turkish citizens visa-free access to Schengen countries. In exchange, Turkey will promise to control its border with Syria. What the EU practically gets in return isn't clear.

Turkey has stopped even pretending to try to liberalise, but that doesn't stop it getting what it wants out of Europe. The EU is now an enabler of Turkey's repressive regime.

Turkey's pivot to Islamism also reflects America's lack of leadership. For the last half century, the US was the world's great power. People were often quick to criticise American interventionism. But now we see what the world looks like without it. Restrained, rudderless, retreating America has allowed frenemies like Turkey to become regional challengers.

The post-Pax Americana world doesn't bode well for Europe.


04 MAY 2016

Is Donald Trump the new Wendell Willkie?

Donald Trump is now virtually certain to be the Republican nominee. For someone fighting his first election, it's a remarkable achievement. But is he America's next president? Or is he the new Wendell Willkie?

Trump isn't the first political outsider to win the Republican nomination.

The closest parallel might be Wendell Willkie.

Like Trump, Willkie was a rich Manhattan big businessman who claimed he couldn't be bought by vested interests. Like Trump, Willkie was a former Democrat. Like Trump, Willkie divided Republican opinion.

Willkie won the Republican nomination in 1940. But he went on to lose the Presidential election to FDR. Will the same happen to Trump?

Trump has beaten the Republican establishment. But beating the Democratic establishment looks trickier. Trump trails Hillary Clinton by some distance in head-to-head polls. Millions of Americans love him, but millions more despise him.

Hillary should be beatable. She is the ultimate political insider, as deeply entrenched on Wall Street as she is in Washington. She is tainted by scandals, some of which are still under criminal investigation. She has neither the charisma nor the novelty of Obama. Her only Democratic opponent is a seventy-four year-old socialist, and she is struggling even to overcome him.

In an anti-establishment election season like this, the establishment candidate shouldn't win. This ought to be the wrong place and the wrong time for Hillary Clinton. Yet to many Americans, she still looks like the lesser of two evils.

It's possible Trump will beat Clinton in November. It's more likely that he'll lose. If that happens, isn't it possible he's not the right kind of insurgent after all?


03 MAY 2016

UKIP Spring

Spring is here - and the outlook has never been brighter for UKIP.

Britain's creaking old political cartel is falling apart.

The Conservative party has the slenderest Commons majority, and is led by a clumsy Downing Street duo, staggering from one blunder to the next.

The Labour party has exited stage left from mainstream politics.

The Lib Dems, meanwhile, are on a holiday from history.

The cartel consensus is crying out to be broken. UKIP is the party to do it.

Look at Wales. UKIP is consistently polling at record highs. We have first-class candidates standing in this week's Welsh Assembly elections. If they win, they will bring a new energy and freshness to an assembly that has been dominated by one party for far too long.

The big parties have failed because they have cut the people off from power. UKIP stands for bringing power back to the people at every level. More power for local communities and individuals. Less power in the hands of remote bureaucrats.

Freedom and direct democracy, or the tired old status quo? I think UKIP's future looks bright!


29 APR 2016

The Left cannot deal with anti-Semitism until it makes peace with Israel

What is it with Labour and anti-Semitism? All parties have bad eggs – mine is no exception. But anti-Semitism is a persistent problem on the British Left. Why?

Part of the issue is political opportunism. There are sectors of the electorate where taking an ostensibly anti-Israel, essentially anti-Semitic, stance is a vote-winner. The Left is not immune from pandering to prejudice.

But let's face it: plenty of those caught out in recent weeks weren't pandering. They said what they actually believed.

The problem is that the postmodern, post-nationalist Left has an issue with the idea of national self-determination. And no modern country embodies that more than Israel.

Right now, Jews are celebrating Passover. Every year, for over two millennia, Jews have marked it with the words "next year in Jerusalem." With the foundation of Israel in 1948, that hope finally became a reality.

But Israel isn't just the fulfilment of an ancient national project. It's also an incredible modern success story. 60 years ago, it was a developing, agricultural country. Today, it has a sophisticated, high-tech economy – making Intel microchips and cutting-edge cancer drugs. Its GDP per capita is over six times higher today than it was in 1950.

Israel's success is the reason many left-wingers hate it. Israel has gone from strength to strength. Many on the Left saw national self-determination as an outdated relic. Israel has proved them wrong.

Jeremy Corbyn claims he'll deal with anti-Semitism in his party. But until he deals with the endemic anti-Zionism nothing will change. If the Left is serious about stamping out anti-Semitism, it needs to make peace with the idea of national self-determination.


28 APR 2016

Brussels is strangling small business

EU red tape costs small business billions. The PM's renegotiation was meant to lift the burden of EU regulation on SMEs. It failed. The only way to set small businesses free is to vote Leave.

Small business is the core of Britain's economy. It accounts for 47% of private sector turnover, and 60% of private sector employment. It's also often the source of the disruptive innovation that produces economic progress. Better conditions for SMEs means more jobs and more prosperity.

But Brussels is holding small business back. EU legislation covers every area of commerce. Packaging goods? Check you've complied with EU standards. Designing an appliance? Make sure you've followed the eco-design directive. Selling food? Don't forget to put the right EU-approved label on it.

The burden falls heaviest on SMEs. Big corporations can afford entire compliance departments to apply the rules – and expensive lobbyists to write them in the first place. SMEs don't have the same resources. The EU lets the big players keep out competition by rigging the market.

EU red tape costs our economy hundreds of billions of pounds – according to the Government's own figures. Based on official impact assessments, the annual cost of EU regulation is over £33 billion.

That's only part of it. Factor in quotas and trade barriers too, and the bill is much higher. In 2005, the Treasury estimated that these cost European consumers up to 7% of GDP – which for Britain comes to £125 billion a year. That's £4,639 per household, or £23,236 per company.

EU trade makes up 10% of our economy. But 79% of British businesses exclusively cater to the domestic market. Why should EU red tape apply to 100% of our economy?

To free small business, create jobs, and grow our economy, we need to repeal restrictive regulation. We can only do that outside the EU.


28 APR 2016

Want more bobbies on the beat? Vote for it!

People often say we need more bobbies on the beat. Now you have the chance to make that happen. Next week's PCC elections make the police directly accountable to the people they serve.

The idea of elected sheriffs – which I first proposed some 14 years ago – isn't just about police accountability. It's also about localism. Different regions have different issues with crime. Local people need the right to determine local police priorities.

PCCs faced a lot of criticism when they were introduced four years ago. But they've proved the doubters wrong. Best of all, they have overthrown ACPO – the quango that used to set one-size-fits-all policy from the top down. Localism is working.

And PCCs are only going to get better. In 2012, the election turnout was low, as people weren't sure how the new system was going to work. Now people are familiar with the system, and can judge the incumbents on their records, elections will be harder fought, and turnout will be higher. More public engagement means better policing.

If locally elected police chiefs work, why stop there? Plenty of public services are still centrally directed by remote bureaucrats in Whitehall. What if we had locally elected transport, environment, or health commissioners too? What if we gave people direct control over the public services they receive?

Localism is a question of trust. Do you trust the Gentlemen in Whitehall – or Brussels – to know what's best for you? Or do you trust yourself? Better public services will come from more direct democracy.


27 APR 2016

Eurocrats or doctors? That's the referendum choice

The NHS is strapped for cash – and I don't just mean junior doctors' pay. Clacton's Peter Bruff ward, which provides essential mental health services, is being shut just to save a few quid. But instead of more funds for healthcare, Britain sends £350 million a week to the EU.

Health may be a protected Government budget, but it isn't half as protected as our tribute to Brussels. In 2009, Britain's EU membership fee was £14 billion. By 2015, it was £18 billion. This year, it's forecast to be over £20 billion.

Where does that money end up?

Increasingly, in officials' pockets.

Doctors may be facing pay restraint, but the same can't be said for Eurocrats. In EU institutions, above inflation annual pay rises are a matter of course. Extra allowances and gold-plated pensions come as standard. To cap it all, EU officials pay a special, discounted rate of tax.

Self-serving Euro elites live in luxury on money extorted from European taxpayers, while paying only a pittance themselves. Isn't this what the peoples of Europe revolted against 200 years ago?

By voting Leave, we can reclaim our taxpayers' money to spend on our priorities. £350 million a week makes a lot possible. The junior doctors' impasse could be solved in just one fortnight – with no more lives risked by walk-outs.

Do we fund better healthcare, or more modern-day Marie Antoinettes? It's your choice.


26 APR 2016

UKIP stands up for steel

For Britain's economy as a whole, steel is important. But for the economy of South Wales – where I'll be today – it's crucial. Losing the steel industry would be devastating. But that's what could happen if we stay in the EU.

Brussels makes it much harder for British steelmakers to do business. The EU's anti-fossil-fuel directives and regulations have driven up energy costs – and heavy industry is paying the price.

While Chinese manufacturers make the most of cheap power, fuel costs for ours have rocketed. EU interference in our energy market is making it impossible for our industry to compete.

The EU also stops us taking action to keep our steel industry afloat.

Tata's Port Talbot steelworks pays close to £10 million in business rates every year. But EU state-aid rules prohibit the Welsh Government from materially reducing that bill. Thanks to Brussels, we can't cut our own taxes, even when they're meant to be devolved to Wales.

Overproduction of steel in China is making it especially difficult for British steelmakers to break even. But, as EU members, we can't take action against Chinese steel dumping.

So what could we do if Britain leaves the EU?

To give our steel industry a sustainable future, we need to give our manufacturers the freedom to compete. That means lowering their taxes, and cutting their energy bills.

The Remainers talk about the 'economic benefits' of the EU as if they are spread equally. In reality, the gains are restricted to an elite few.


25 APR 2016

Let's make June 23rd a real independence day

Independence Day 2 will be released in Britain on referendum day - June 23rd. Trailers show London being destroyed by an alien invasion. Like any Hollywood blockbuster, no doubt the humans eventually win. Will we take back our independence in real life too?

In the myriad films about an alien conquest, the assumption is always that Earth is better off independent. No one ever says, "these aliens will give us access to a galactic market; maybe surrendering our planetary sovereignty wouldn't be so bad."

Millions of movie-goers pay to watch fictional characters fight for their freedom against impossible odds. But our real-life leaders have grown much more timorous.

The Defence Secretary says we can't fight wars on our own anymore.

The Chancellor tells us – perhaps from personal experience – we can't successfully manage our own economy.

The Prime Minister flies in foreign leaders to tell us the world will put us on the naughty step if we don't do as we're told.

Project Fear's case for staying in the EU is rooted in defeatism. Never mind that Britain is the fifth largest economy in the world and a permanent member of the UN Security Council; we're told we're too small to go it alone. President Obama's message to Britain is, "No You Can't."

The trouble with defeatism is that it's self-fulfilling. Britain is not a subservient satellite state, but it will become one if we surrender our future and our freedom to the failing European project.

Unlike Will Smith and his 2016 successors, we're not facing insurmountable odds. A vote to leave the EU is a vote to become an independent, sovereign country again – like most other countries beyond Europe's borders. It's a vote for the safety and security that comes with control.

Let's kick our alien overlords out, and make June 23rd a real independence day.


22 APR 2016

Brexit will sow the seeds of change

My vegetable garden in Clacton is where I go to escape politics. With the EU referendum looming, I rarely get much chance to go there. But even when I do, I recently discovered I can't escape Brussels.

You see, I recently ordered some seeds from realseeds.co.uk. It's a small, independent business which sells a huge variety of open-pollinated seeds for proper vegetables – not the hybrid seeds behind the tasteless produce sold by big, corporate supermarkets.

But it turns out the European Commission wanted to introduce a new EU Seed Law to regulate the varieties of seeds that could be sold.

What possible justification for EU regulation of trade in vegetable seeds could there possibly be?

The EU's assault on seed was classic Commission corporatism. In every industry, small firms that can't afford lobbyists and compliance departments get crowded out by Big Business buddying up with Brussels bureaucrats to rig the rules.

Gardeners of Britain, Vote Leave! (And buy lots of seeds from small, independent producers .....)


21 APR 2016

Brexit will create more and better jobs

Unemployment is up. Project Fear predictably points the finger at the prospect of Brexit. But to create not just more but better jobs, we need controlled immigration, less business regulation, and more free trade. For that, we have to vote Leave.

Unemployment may still be low, but for many people in Britain it's not easy to find a job. EU free movement rules have hugely increased the labour supply, as millions of EU nationals have come to the UK in search of higher pay. In-work tax credits and the rising minimum wage have only added to the incentive.

Because the labour supply is limitless, wages have stagnated – particularly at the lower end of the labour market. People applying for those jobs are facing more competition for less reward.

Open-door immigration is one of the reasons Britain's economic 'recovery' has been so unconvincing. The combination of zombie banks and a cheap workforce has pushed businesses to be labour, rather than capital, intensive. Instead of investing in new technology to become more efficient, companies have relied on low-wage workers. Consequently, our productivity has also stagnated.

The EU is an obstacle to productivity in other ways too. Reams of business regulation prevents innovation, and costs British businesses an estimated £600 million every week. Trade barriers stop us accessing expanding global markets beyond the borders of the world's only declining trading bloc.

If we leave the EU, we can rebalance our economy. We can have a fair, points-based immigration system, which prioritises high-skilled labour that complements capital, rather than low-skilled labour that acts as a substitute for it. We can repeal the regulation holding our business back. We can enable our companies to go global.

Controlled immigration, faster innovation, and wider trade means not just more jobs, but better-paid jobs too. Make it happen: vote Leave.


20 APR 2016

We don't need EU membership to have European friends

Last week, I visited Świdnica – Clacton's Polish twin - for the first time. Our bilateral ties prove something important: we don't need to be in the EU to be have strong friendships in Europe.

Świdnica has a fascinating history. For most of the last 500 years, it has been under foreign rule.

In the late 14th century, it moved from Polish to Czech control. In the 16th century, the Austrian Habsburgs took over. In the 18th century, it was annexed by Prussia. It was returned to Poland at the end of World War II, only to be part of a Communist USSR satellite state. It wasn't until the fall of Communism that Świdnica was truly restored to independent Polish rule again.

Yet Świdnica is also a monument to national sovereignty. Its most famous building is the Church of the Peace, which commemorates the Peace of Westphalia. Those peace treaties created the Westphalian system of sovereign nation states that underpins international law to this day.

I went to Świdnica – courtesy of Sky News - to talk about the referendum. Because of the EU, national sovereignty is under threat. Foreign rule is reasserting itself in both Clacton and Świdnica, only this time it's bureaucrats in Brussels in charge.

The EU's erosion of national sovereignty doesn't just motivate Brexiteers in Britain. It worries Poles too. Poland has just elected a Eurosceptic government. When you think about the history of a town like Świdnica, you can understand why. The Remain campaign's pretence that everyone in Europe is passionately pro-EU except us is just not true.

Taking back control from Brussels doesn't mean cutting Britain off from Europe. It means a different relationship with Europe. Ties based on free trade and friendly cooperation, not customs union rules and common laws.

The wonderful people I met in Świdnica made it crystal clear that, whatever happens in the referendum, our friendship won't change.


19 APR 2016

UKIP is the party of Gladstonian liberalism

"All the world over, I will back the masses against the classes," said William Gladstone. Only one party in Britain stands with the people against establishment elites today. That party is UKIP.

It's because UKIP is the closest party to Gladstonian liberalism today that this picture of the Grand Old Man appears in our Welsh manifesto.

UKIP – like Gladstone – stands for freedom. Like him, we're against a big, intrusive state. We oppose punitive taxation and economic central planning. We support individual liberty and personal responsibility.

Like Gladstone, UKIP stands for putting power in the hands of the people. In his day, that meant expanding the franchise. In ours, that means more devolution – not just to the constituent countries of the United Kingdom, but to cities and towns, and ultimately to families and individuals. It means calling for referenda – like the one we're having on June 23rd.

Like Gladstone, UKIP stands for free trade. We don't support protectionist trade blocs with trade barriers against goods from the rest of the world. We want Britain to leave the EU, and open up new trade links to the rest of the world.

It was Gladstone who introduced Irish Home Rule. Proposing the bill, Gladstone told Parliament: "we have proposed this measure because Ireland wants to make her own laws."

UKIP is the only party that believes Britain should make her own laws, and that the government of Britain should be solely accountable to the British people. Gladstone is rightly our inspiration.


19 APR 2016

Shareholders of the world, unite!

Why are corporate CEO salaries so inflated? The Left blames capitalism. But the battle over BP boss Bob Dudley's pay rise tells a different story. The shareholders – the capitalist owners - rejected his new pay deal. The problem is they were ignored.

When pundits and politicians talk about the 'democratic deficit,' they're usually thinking about government. The centralisation of power in unaccountable bureaucracies like the European Commission. The powerlessness of Parliament. The establishment consensus that withstands every election.

But the same thing has happened in business. Instead of shareholder democracy, authority has become centralised in a boardroom oligarchy. CEOs are increasingly unaccountable to the people who own the company.

The executive elite has emerged from the ruins of shareholder democracy. In the absence of accountability, the managerial class has succeeded in enriching itself at the shareholders' expense.

As a result, the wealthy and powerful today are no longer entrepreneurs, but corporate bureaucrats. Just like at the height of the East India Company, managers – not innovators – fill the upper echelons of society. The Davos Men are the new nabobs.

The new nabobocracy has transformed our economy. Leftists and Rightists alike pretend that we live in a capitalist, free market. They're both wrong. Our economy is no longer capitalist. It's corporatist.

Look at how many boardroom bureaucrats sit on advisory committees to the PM and the Chancellor. Look at the revolving door between Big Business and the regulators that are meant to keep it in check. Look at the CEO consensus on staying in the EU – the corporate lobbyist's paradise.

Managerialist government and managerialist business have given us a (poorly) managed economy.

To end the concentration of power and money in a tiny elite, it won't be enough to restore democracy in politics. We need to bring back shareholder democracy too.


18 APR 2016

To end inequality, we need to mend monetary policy

What is the biggest cause of income inequality? Angry protesters like to point the finger at greedy corporate fat cats, but they miss the mechanics of how wealth is actually redistributed. The cause is messed up monetary policy. The culprits are central banks.

Cheap credit is at the root of the world's economic malaise. Using zero interest rates and quantitative easing, central banks have pumped out credit like cholesterol into the arteries of the economy. The aim was to stimulate economic growth. The result has been the opposite.

Manipulating the money supply is a form of price fixing. For decades, central banks have set the price of capital far too low. The result is what economists call malinvestment. Resources flow from wealth-creators to rent-seekers. Wealth moves from the asset poor to the asset rich.

Eventually these central-bank-caused economic imbalances become a full-blown economic crisis. Think I'm exaggerating? Look at the graph (above) from my pamphlet After Osbrown.

Today, people are finally waking up to the consequences of record low interest rates. An unsustainable housing bubble, that prevents young people getting on the housing ladder. An unsustainable pensions shortfall, that left a £2 billion black hole in Tata Steel's employee pension fund. An unsustainable financial system, which keeps broken banks in business and rewards their creditors for failure.

I've drafted a probing amendment to the Bank of England Bill with the people at Positive Money. It calls for a commission to report on the impact of monetary policy on sustainable development and inequality – and make sure we don't make the same mistakes again.

We need monetary policy that promotes long-term economic prosperity for all, not the short-term political gain of Establishment elites. Let's see if the Government agrees.


15 APR 2016

Let select committees sack bad bureaucrats

Earlier this week, MPs on the Home Affairs Select Committee threw out the civil servant they were questioning for giving atrocious answers. "Parliament flexes its muscles," said the press. Really? The fact that the best the committee could do was send the official back to his desk shows how powerless Parliament has become.

Parliamentary select committees are supposed to hold government departments to account. Yet they can't actually change what departments do. They have no say over budgets. They can't control appointments. Ministers and officials are free to ignore their recommendations.

Parliament's powerlessness means unelected bureaucrats have a free reign. Officials who not only evade scrutiny in committee hearings but demonstrate that they don't know their brief carry on through the ranks of the civil service anyway. How can this be a good system of government?

It isn't like this everywhere. In the United States, elected representatives have much more power. Congressional Committees don't just have the power to block official appointments, but control the legislative process and the executive's budget.

What if we gave Parliamentary committees more power here? What if top officials needed to be approved in select committee hearings before they were appointed? What if, instead of giving underperforming civil servants a slap on the wrist, select committees could sack them?

In a democracy, the people are meant to be able to turf out their government. Parliament's powerlessness over officialdom means we can't do that. To restore our democracy, we need to give select committees more clout.


14 APR 2016

It's time to unite to win the referendum

Congratulations to Vote Leave! Its designation as the official Leave campaign is good news for Brexiteers. Of all the groups vying for designation, I believe Vote Leave is best placed to win us the referendum. Now we need to unite behind it to make that happen.

I've supported Vote Leave since even before it was launched because I think it has the best organisation, the brightest strategists, and the broadest reach to win the referendum, and make sure Britain leaves the EU. It's that simple.

I'm glad there was competition for the designation – competition is a good thing. But now Vote Leave has got it, we need to put aside minor differences on means, and focus on our shared goal.

To win the referendum, Eurosceptics of every stripe have to work together. UKIP, Tory, and Labour; businessmen and trades unionists; ardent socialists and avid free-marketeers. People who may rarely see eye to eye on anything else, but agree on one thing: that the way Britain is run should be decided by the British people, not bureaucrats in Brussels.

Working together doesn't mean speaking with one voice. On the contrary: we need different voices to appeal to different priorities among voters. For some people in Britain, the biggest issue is immigration. But for others, it's the economy, or exports, or public services, or the cost of living. The EU has an enormous impact on so many aspects of our lives. To win, we have to address all of them.

Referendum day is only two months away. The polls show the campaigns are neck and neck. Britain's future is hanging in the balance.

We need your support to win. If you haven't already, sign up to Vote Leave, and join the campaign to take back control.


13 APR 2016

The IMF ruined Greece. Why trust it on Brexit?

Stop the presses: the IMF has come out for Remain. Who'd have thought it? An elitist, supra-national body led by a lifelong Europhile supports the EU. Treat its conclusions with caution: the IMF has been wrong about European integration before, and it's wrong again now.

The IMF has an immaculate track record of failure. It was wrong about the euro. It was wrong about cutting Britain's budget deficit. It was wrong about the global economy before the financial crisis, and it was wrong about the response afterwards.

But its approach to Europe in recent years hasn't just been wrong; it has been catastrophic. The IMF is one of the members of the troika that has repeatedly failed to solve the Eurozone sovereign debt disaster, and reduced Greece to debt deflation and constant crisis.

Four years ago, IMF director Christine Lagarde said the latest European Stability Mechanism loan to Greece would "help to bring back Greece's debt ratio to a sustainable path."

I was more sceptical, writing at the time: "A new IMF-led bailout-and-borrow initiative will be no more successful at solving the problems of the Eurozone that all the previous bailouts proved to be."

Who was right?

The big issue for the IMF is always uncertainty. But what kind of certainty do we get from the EU? If experience is any guide, it's the certainty of sky-high unemployment, economic stagnation, and business-strangling regulation.

There is a tried and tested route to economic growth and prosperity: free markets, free trade, light regulation, and less government.

The EU stands in the way of all four. That's why our country and our economy will be better off if we leave.


12 APR 2016

The real offshore tax scam is the EU

The PM's tax affairs have caused a bit of a media kerfuffle. But there's an even bigger tax scam people are missing. It's called the EU.

Many Eurocrats have been getting tax-free salaries for years. Enraged at the idea of officials not paying their fair share? It's a way of life for many on the Brussels gravy train.

EU officials work under a special tax code that gives them preferential treatment. As we revealed in our EU Rich List, top EU officials each pay £50,000 less tax every year than they would in the UK.

That's not all. Remember the outrage about Google, Starbucks, and Apple not paying corporation tax in the UK? That is made possible by the EU too.

EU tax law allows multinationals to pay tax on European revenue in whichever EU member state they claim to be based. So obviously they pick the state with the lowest tax rates.

And it doesn't stop there. Multinationals also get a helping hand from the European Court of Justice. New research shows European court rulings have forced HMRC to pay back tens of billions of pounds to corporations.

Ultimately Britain is powerless to prevent tax havens. We can't make the laws in Panama or Monaco or Singapore. But we do have an opportunity to change the laws here. On June 23rd, we can vote to take back control of our tax system from Brussels.

There's a better way tackle tax avoidance than staging pointless protests on Whitehall. If you really want to stand up to an untaxed, rent-seeking elite, do something that makes a difference: vote Leave.


11 APR 2016

Our taxes are being used to tell us what to think

In this age of austerity, Britain sends £350 million of your taxes in tribute to Brussels every week. "Money well spent," insist the Remainers. So what are the Eurocrats spending your money on? Pro-EU propaganda for British schoolchildren.

The EU is sending freebies of 'The Mystery of the Golden Stars' – its 'child-friendly' self-mythology – to state schools across Britain. Because it's not enough for taxpayer-funded pro-EU PR to bombard us at home, now it's targeting our kids at school too.

For an organisation whose benefits – the Europhiles tell us – are so obvious, the EU spends an awful lot on publicity. If Euro-federalism worked, why would Brussels need to divert so much money into convincing us?

The peoples of Europe aren't blind. We can all see the economic stagnation, the broken single currency, the endless sovereign debt saga, and the constant migrant crisis. The Eurocrats can't fix it. So instead – like any good apparatchiks in a failing superstate - they put all their efforts into persuading us we can't trust the evidence of our own eyes.

The vast quantities of publicly-funded propaganda coming our way in the referendum campaign sends a message – but not necessarily the message its authors intended. It tells us that, two months out from the referendum, they're seriously scared they're going to lose.

So let's take heart from the agitprop: the real subliminal message behind it says we can win!


08 APR 2016

Spending taxpayers' money on pro-EU propaganda is disgraceful

Local NHS officials shut Peter Bruff ward in Clacton saying they need to save money. GP surgeries in Clacton can't accept new patients because they don't have the resources. Yet David Cameron is spending £9.3 million of your taxes on sending pro-EU PR to every household in Britain. It's disgraceful.

Making the government an organ of the Remain campaign is totally inappropriate – and it's not just us Eurosceptics who think so. The Electoral Commission agrees.

The PM claims there's precedent for what he's doing from the 1975 referendum on Europe. But at least back then households were sent leaflets from both sides of the debate. Make no mistake: what he's sending out isn't information, it's propaganda.

This isn't the only pro-EU publicity you're paying for, either. Brussels is pumping money into the campaign too.

But in one respect this stunt highlights what the referendum is all about.

The elites in Whitehall and Brussels think they have the right to tell you what to think. In their eyes, your job is to do what you're told by the officials.

On the Leave side, we disagree. We believe in something called democracy. In a democracy, the government doesn't get to tell the people what to do. The people get to tell the government.

The referendum is our opportunity to take back control from the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and spend our money on our priorities, not theirs.

If you can't wait till June to send Downing Street a message, here's an idea: return the PM's propaganda to sender.


07 APR 2016

In the digital world, tax havens aren't just for the rich

The Panama Papers have sparked an international furore. But haven't we heard it all before? The political pledges to close tax loopholes. The socialist slogans saying 'soak the rich'. The disputes about the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion. Isn't there anything new to say?

Here's something the pundits are missing: tax havens aren't just for the rich anymore.

The digital revolution means it's not just plutocrats who can hide their wealth away. Anyone can do it. Create a Bitcoin wallet, and you too can store wealth in secret, and access it from anywhere in the world.

Digital wallets create a conundrum for the taxman. How can governments clamp down on tax evasion when every iPhone could be a tax haven?

Perhaps we should be looking at something bolder than tweaking the rules. If you buy or sell a house, the amount you pay is a matter of public record. What if the money you paid to and received from the State were publicly disclosed too?

In Scandinavia, tax returns are publicly accessible. Imagine you could read David Cameron's tax returns. Would total transparency keep our leaders completely scrupulous?

Well, not necessarily. Look at the Icelandic PM: you wouldn't find anything untoward on his tax returns – because he didn't declare the dodgy assets.

Maybe we need to accept there are no easy answers. The tax base is liquid. The only thing we can really do to level the playing the field is to have lower, simpler taxes for everyone.


06 APR 2016

The Greek tragedy was made in Brussels

Project Fear claims our economic prosperity depends on the EU. Try telling that to the Greeks. Six years since the sovereign debt crisis began, Greece is still facing economic catastrophe – and the blame lies in Brussels.

Greece's problems began with the euro. The single currency misrepresented the risk of lending to Greece. It allowed Greece's consumers and its government to buy what they couldn't afford on credit they should never have been lent – money which came from banks in Germany and elsewhere in the EU. Greek borrowers should have known better, but so should European lenders and policymakers.

In response to the inevitable crash, though, only Greece was expected to pay the price. Instead of making the lenders who made bad investments in Greece bear the full cost of their bad decisions, the EU Troika has forced Greece into a vicious circle of economic contraction and debt expansion that creates a constant crisis.

Yet Greece has been abandoned not just for its creditors' sake, but for the euro's. Restoring the drachma could have freed Greece from debt deflation. But to keep up the absurd pretence that the single currency is a success, the Greeks have been reduced to debt servitude instead.

The EU hasn't just failed to save the Greek economy. It has sacrificed the Greek economy to save the European project. Tell me again how we're safer leaving the Eurocrats in control?


05 APR 2016

Beware the siren song of statism

Port Talbot looks likely to be saved by private investors, yet that hasn't stopped politicians and pundits banging the drum for nationalisation – because it worked so well 40 years ago. But the new statists aren't just selectively recalling the past; they're missing the failed State planning all around us.

Nationalised industry didn't work well in the 1970s. State-owned companies were massively lossmaking and, because they were State-owned, the taxpayer had to pick up the tab.

Today, it looks like the State will be on the hook for the £2 billion shortfall in Tata's employee pension fund. That might well be the best option in the circumstances. But remember, that bail-out won't be created from thin air: it will come out of your pocket.

We don't have to go back to the 1970s, though, to see that nationalisation doesn't work. The evidence is everywhere today.

Let's start with the Tata pension fund: why is there a shortfall in the first place? As Moneyweek's Merryn Somerset Webb observes, it's down to interest rates. Because the Bank of England set the rates so low, pension funds everywhere in Britain are struggling to meet their obligations. Our State-owned central bank has a monopoly over the money supply, and it has catastrophically mismanaged it.

Nationalisation is at the root of the steel crisis too. Why is China dumping millions of tonnes of steel? Because its predominantly State-owned steel industry, governed by central diktats rather than market demand, vastly overproduced.

From the Post Office to Network Rail to RBS, there is nothing in the recent history of State-owned enterprise in Britain that should make us think the next nationalisation will work wonders. But if Britain does embark on a new statist spending spree, be sure that you – the taxpayer – will pay the price.


04 APR 2016

Britain's future should belong to the young, not the Eurocrats

Project Fear's Nicky Morgan is taking aim at millennials this week. Generation Y join football, London, science, and airports on the Inners' checklist of things that will cease to exist the moment we vote Leave. But in reality, it's the youngest voters who have the most to gain from taking back control of Britain.

Leave supporters are a minority among 18-34 year olds, according to the latest opinion polls. However, the same polls say 18-34s are among the least likely to turn out to vote – which doubtless has nothing to do with the Education Secretary's latest apocalyptic lobbying.

The fact that political disaffection may once again deter young voters from the ballot box on June 23rd is curious. Disillusionment with what's happened to our democracy is precisely why I'm campaigning to leave.

The EU has hollowed out our democracy. A huge proportion of our laws are written not by representatives we choose at the ballot box but by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats at the European Commission. Many people say it doesn't matter who they vote for, because nothing will change. Since Parliament is no longer sovereign, they're right.

In the absence of popular accountability, the EU is run in the interests of Davos elites. Brussels is the Mecca of regulatory capture. Big Business and corporate lobbyists love it. That's why Tony Benn and his disciples, like one Jeremy Corbyn, always saw the EU as a crony corporatist club. They're right too.

European integration has increasingly centralised power and money in a cross-Continental oligarchy. The referendum is our chance – almost certainly our only chance – to take it back.

A vote to Leave will mean most to the youngest, because it offers a genuine opportunity to shape Britain's future. Backing Remain is a vote for more disenfranchisement and decline. If you want the power to decide what Britain looks like in 50 years' time, vote Leave.


01 APR 2016

Monetary manipulation is messing up our economy

UK household savings have sunk to record lows. The UK's current account deficit has reached a record high. Our so-called recovery is really just more debt and more overspending. And it's all because of the monetary policy that was meant to fix our economy.

The reason people aren't saving is simple: the Bank of England has taken away the incentive. For the last seven years, the Bank of England has kept interest rates absurdly, artificially low – lower even than inflation. When investments no longer yield a decent return, why should people save?

Effectively negative interest rates have transferred wealth from the poor to the rich. They have subsidised the banks at the expense of the people. Worse still, they have perpetuated the excesses that brought about the financial crisis. Instead of fixing a failed system, the Bank of England has propped it up, and rewarded its worst offenders for failure.

Broken banks and overflowing debt are proof we live in a centrally planned economy. In a free market, bad banks would have gone bust and interest rates would match the risk of investing. Instead, at the core of a supposedly market economy, central bank bureaucrats set the price of capital.

Our economy is stalling because it increasingly rests on what Hayek called the fatal conceit: the idea that a tiny elite can allocate resources better than the millions of minds that make up the market.

Central economic planning – whether in Threadneedle Street, or Whitehall, or Brussels – is holding our economy back. Trusting the same elites and policies that got us into the mess to get us out of it is madness. To rebalance our economy, we need to trust the free market.


31 MAR 2016

Vote leave and free the energy market to save the steel industry

The British steel industry is in trouble. Why? Globalisation and Chinese steel dumping are a factor. But there is another major cause: our own misguided energy policy. So can we change it? Not unless we leave the EU.

Britain's energy market is rigged. Anti-CO2 taxes, subsidies, and caps on fossil fuel generation have driven up energy costs by billions of pounds a year. Restrictions on coal generation have eroded one of Britain's key advantages: ample coal reserves.

While energy-intensive businesses in Britain have seen their bills rocket, manufacturers in the US, China, and India have made the most of low global fuel prices. It's no surprise that our manufacturers are struggling to compete.

The only way to make our industry competitive is to cut the CO2 taxes and level the playing field. But as long as we're in the EU, we can't. The EU's Emissions Performance Standard, Large Combustion Plant Directive, and Emissions Trading Scheme have cut our fossil fuel generation and raised our costs – and we are powerless to do anything about it.

If we vote Leave, though, there is a lot we can do. As Roger Helmer, UKIP's Energy Spokesman, set out in our recent policy paper, an independent Britain could cut energy costs, secure generating capacity, and create efficient new technology, all by setting the energy market free.

Britain may no longer have a comparative advantage in heavy industry, but that doesn't mean we should be making life unnecessarily difficult for our manufacturers with artificial costs. A government that truly believed in giving British steel a viable future would back Brexit.


30 MAR 2016

Protectionism and socialism can't help us - just ask the North Koreans

North Koreans have reportedly been told to brace for another 'arduous march' – or devastating famine – the last of which killed 3.5 million people. Whereas North Korea's central economic planning and autarky have brought nothing but poverty, open markets and free trade have turned South Korea into one of the world's most dynamic economies. So why do politicians in the prosperous, free West fetishise the failed economic doctrines of Pyongyang?

Attacking free trade and free markets is in vogue on both the right and the left. Jeremy Corbyn won the Labour leadership on a platform of back-to-the-70s nationalisation and redistributive taxes. Bernie Sanders is drawing swathes of support by attacking capitalism and globalisation. Donald Trump is leading the Republican race by advocating not just a physical wall against Mexico, but tariff barriers against China.

All three pretend that life can get better with the stroke of a pen in Washington or Whitehall. Wages too low? Tax the rich! Jobs too scarce? End free trade! Factories closing? Blame Beijing!

Trump, Sanders, and Corbyn style themselves as champions of the poor. They are praised by their supporters for going where the Establishment fears to tread. But are they really so brave? Making false promises of quick-fix solutions has always been the politician's path of least resistance.

Free trade and free markets aren't always the easiest sell. It's simple to point to the negative effects of globalisation for industrial cities in the West, as manufacturing jobs are automated or offshored. Showing the wider positive effects – lower prices, new jobs in the service sector, better specialisation – takes more explanation.

But here's the simple truth: if we listen to the protectionist and socialist snake-oil salesmen, there won't be an industrial renaissance. There'll be poverty.


24 MAR 2016

Free marketeers can't support extortionate executive pay

“Sky-high executive pay is damaging capitalism,” writes Moneyweek’s Merryn Somerset Webb. I think she’s right. Rocketing remuneration for a corporate clique can’t just be a target for the Left. Free marketeers shouldn’t support it either.

You’ve probably seen the headlines about the eye-watering levels of CEO pay today. The average FTSE 100 CEO now earns 183 times more than ordinary British workers. Martin Sorrell, Britain’s best-paid executive, takes home £43 million. As average wages have stagnated, CEO salaries have risen faster than ever.

Many on the Right treat executive pay packets as just a function of the market. But is it? How much value does a CEO really add to a company?

Companies often base their CEO’s salary on their share price. When the share price goes up, the CEO makes more money. The idea is that a rising share price means the boss is doing a good job.

But, in recent years, that’s not how the stock market has worked. Share prices have risen not because companies have got stronger but because central banks have flooded the market with cheap capital. The stock market is an artificial bubble, and CEO salaries are inflated by extension.

Massive CEO salaries are a sign of a corporatist economy. Today, the highest returns too often come from lobbyists rigging the rules instead of innovation. No wonder the wealthiest people nowadays are managers, not entrepreneurs.

Inflated executive pay reflects redistribution from the poor to the rich. It’s time the Right stopped defending it.


23 MAR 2016

The West lacks the leadership to tackle Islamist terror

And so it goes on. Another horrific atrocity. What is so shocking is that perhaps it isn't so shocking anymore. It is 15 years since the 9/11 attacks woke the West up to Islamist terror. We have suffered these attacks time and again for a decade and a half. What are we doing about it?

In response to the attack on the Twin Towers, Blair and Bush intervened in Afghanistan and Iraq, and tried to encourage democracy. It is very fashionable to sneer and deride them for that now. But who's got a better plan? Other than holding hands and making trite statements, what are our current leaders actually going to do?

The problem with the middle-of-the-road, managerialist, technocrats who govern the West today is that all they do is tweak the status quo. We need fundamental change at so many levels to deal with so many new challenges, but Western policymakers aren't up to the job.

For too long, Western diplomats have cosied up to states that are frankly frenemies: countries that pose as friends, but are really enemies. For decades, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States have exported money and radicalism to the West – and we have done nothing to stop it. Now we are paying the price.

Last week, EU foreign policy involved giving Turkey billions of euros and visa-free access to Europe in return for the promise that they might stop one or two boats. The West is in an incredibly weak position.

When I heard the news from Brussels yesterday, I thought the same thing as I did after the bombings in Paris and the attack on the airliner over Ukraine: what would Reagan and Thatcher have done? What would Churchill and Attlee have done? Where are the leaders of their calibre now?

The threat of radical Islam can be met, but only with a major shift in public policy and real leadership.


22 MAR 2016

Why I'm voting against Osborne's irresponsible budget

UKIP believes in fiscal responsibility. I supported last year's budget because it made some necessary and responsible reductions in public spending. But I will be voting against this year's budget, because it is fiscally irresponsible.

Balancing the books is not optional. If the Government continues to spend tens of billions more than it takes in taxes every year, our creditors will soon treat Britain as a risky bet, and stop lending us cheap money. When that happens, pensions, benefits, and healthcare will suddenly face a funding crisis from which there is no escape. The only way to preserve the welfare state is to make it financially sustainable today.

For all his clichés about difficult decisions and fixing the roof, George Osborne has failed to tackle Britain's ballooning borrowing. He broke his promise to close the deficit by 2015. He has ignored his welfare cap. Having nearly doubled the national debt in absolute terms, he is now violating another of his rules and letting it rise as a proportion of GDP too.

Once again, Osborne has stored up cuts for the end of the Parliament, only to be abandoned before the next election – if he survives at Number 11 that long. After six years, it's obvious that for as long as Osborne is Chancellor, Britain will never stop borrowing.

Like Gordon Brown before him, Osborne opts for gimmicks and giveaways instead of fiscal responsibility. He tries to take the British people for fools.

I believe the British people deserve honesty. Unless we fix Britain's systemic fiscal and financial problems, we are heading for an economic catastrophe. Borrow-and-spend budgets are a luxury we can't afford.


21 MAR 2016

The digital revolution comes to farming

200 years ago, Malthus predicted it would be impossible to feed the world's rocketing population. He was wrong. Thanks to the agricultural revolution, food production didn't just keep pace with population growth, but far surpassed it – lifting millions off the breadline. Now the digital revolution is pushing farming forward again.

The innovation that has made farming so efficient has mostly been on the supply side: combine harvesters, pesticides, drip irrigation. Technology that enabled farmers to get more food out of the same amount of land.

But what about the demand side?

That's where the digital revolution comes in. A Chinese start-up has invented an app called Meicai that links restaurants directly to farmers. Instead of farmers having to take their produce to market, or rely on intermediaries, buyers find farmers through their smartphones.

By cutting out both middlemen and timewasting, the app makes the selling process much more efficient. Farmers get higher returns, restaurants get lower costs, and consumers get fresher food. It's a win on all fronts!

The app has one more big benefit: it forecasts future demand. By giving farmers a precise indication of how much to grow, the app helps them allocate their resources better in the production process too.

In Europe, we have got used to treating pressures on farmers with subsidies. The EU first paid farmers to produce mountains of wasted food, and now pays many not to produce at all. But making farmers dependent on taxpayers isn't a long-term solution. Cutting farmers' costs and raising their returns is. So when can Meicai come to Britain?


17 MAR 2016

Britain's banks are too big to save

It is sometimes said that the banks are too big to fail. The reality is many have become too big to save.

In 1971, when the pound was linked to the dollar, and the dollar was linked to gold, the assets of British banks were worth well under 100% of our GDP. Today, they come to well over 400%.

The only countries with a higher ratio of bank assets to GDP than the UK are Ireland, Iceland, and Singapore. The precedent from two of those three should make us worried.

A little like late mediaeval Venice or early modern Holland, there is a real risk that Britain's economy is excessively built on a fundamentally unstable banking structure. As our paper revealed a few months ago, our banks hold so little equity they are no safer than they were in 2007.

We often condescendingly look across the Channel at economic stagnation Europe. We pretend – like the Chancellor did yesterday – that our economy is in much better health. Actually we're vulnerable too.

Trying to keep broken banks afloat won't protect our deposits and our savings. We need to start thinking about how to let big banks fail safely, and build a better banking system.

There is life After Osbrown.


16 MAR 2016

Obesity can't be stopped by fiat

Mums and dads will now have to pay more because George Osborne disapproves of their kids drinking Coke. The Chancellor says the Treasury will make £520 million a year from his new sugar tax on soft drinks. That's £520 million taken out of the pockets of families.

Of course there is a problem with obesity, which needs to be tackled. But the idea a fizzy drinks tax will solve the problem is absurd. What about Coco Pops? That's full of sugar. Bulmers cider apparently contains as much sugar as a can of Coke. Will that be subject to this new tax too?

What percentage of an obese child's obesity is caused by fizzy drinks? How much is caused by overeating pizza, burgers, and chocolate – or lack of exercise? Will there be a tax on all of that too?

Yet again, a politician thinks he can reshape the nation – literally, in this case – by grand design. The Chancellor is clearly thinking of his legacy. But he has done nothing today to tackle child obesity.

If people want to lose weight, they need to do what George Osborne did: eat less and move more.


16 MAR 2016

Another Osbrown budget means more debt and clever gimmickry

George Osborne will doubtless try to pull some surprises out of his budget red box today. But after six years, we know what to expect: more gimmicks, more borrowing, and more taxes.

Osborne used to criticise Gordon Brown for doubling the length of Tolley's tax guide. But his constant tinkering has made the tax code even longer and more complex. The biggest beneficiaries of his chancellorship are lawyers and accountants.

This budget will be full of gimmicks about infrastructure. We'll hear more about the Northern Powerhouse and shiny new railways, but there's no substance behind the spin. Government investment spending, including infrastructure, has more than halved since he took office in 2010 - from over 3% of GDP then to under 1.5% today.

The Chancellor likes to style himself as Britain's Robert Moses, but he's no master builder. After six years, this Government hasn't even managed to agree a plan for a new runway, let alone build one.

Osborne likes gimmicks and his minor giveaways tend to reek of pork barrel politics. Every budget, he uses taxpayers' money to buy off his favourite backbenchers. Today, he'll no doubt be rewarding MPs who have sold out over the EU. But will it be the kiss of death?

I suspect this Chancellor is approaching a day of reckoning. For all the talk of austerity, Osborne has ducked dealing with the deficit, and left us unprepared for the next crisis. Just a few months ago, he claimed to have conjured up another £27 billion based on overoptimistic economic projections. Now the economy is deteriorating, he has nowhere to hide.

Osbrown manipulation has crashed our economy. It's time for a new approach. Let's close the deficit by saving public money – not least the £55 million a day we send to Brussels. And let's unleash the economy with lower, simpler, fairer taxes.


15 MAR 2016

Scrap the licence fee, embrace the market

Isn't Netflix great? For £6 a month you get access to high quality programmes from all over the world. Netflix has changed television for the better – and all without the aid of a licence fee.

The rise of Netflix is a victory for consumer choice. People who can't afford extortionate cable TV can now access cable programmes online. It competes as a programme maker too. With shows like House of Cards, Netflix has demonstrated it can make the finest dramas around.

Netflix has shown up the conceit that the BBC makes the best programmes in the world. We're told we need the licence fee to get high quality television. But what brilliant shows is the BBC actually making with its extorted money? Bargain Hunt? Barely Legal Drivers?

Today, the best detective shows are made in Scandinavia. The best dramas in America. Even the presenters behind the BBC's most successful show, Top Gear, have moved to Amazon Prime.

If the BBC's output is really so good, why do people need to be forced to pay for it? Netflix shows that if you make programmes people want to watch, they will pay for it. Why should the people who don't want to watch the BBC subsidise those who do?

The fact that people can face criminal prosecution for not having a licence for a television isn't just absurd, it's draconian. The licence fee is regressive – just like the poll tax. It gives the BBC an unfair advantage against its competitors. But it doesn't produce better programmes.

Consumer choice, not compulsory charges, is improving television. Let's scrap the licence fee, and unleash the market.


14 MAR 2016

Get ready for the Osborne bust

Britain is one of the best prepared countries in the world for the next economic crash, boasts George Osborne. Really? On his watch, our national debt has nearly doubled, our current account deficit has broken records, and our public books still aren't balanced. The sun is about to stop shining, but the Chancellor has left a gaping hole in the roof.

Osborne's version of austerity is all talk. Over the last decade, Britain hasn't just had monetary stimulus, but fiscal stimulus too. Remember: he broke his promise to close the deficit by 2015. Every year, the Government has spent tens of billions more than it took in taxes. If that's not fiscal stimulus, what is?

For the last few years, the Chancellor has been able to hide behind economic growth. But the recovery has been an unsustainable illusion, based on cheap credit and Government largesse. Just like his 1970s predecessor Anthony Barber, Osborne's borrow-and-spend strategy has stoked a temporary boom. As Barber found out, it will all come crashing down.

The problem with borrowing is that at some point you have to pay it back - with interest. Despite record low interest rates, Britain's annual debt interest payments (currently £47 billion) exceed the departmental budgets for the Home Office, the Foreign Office, Justice, Transport, BIS, and DEFRA combined. The minor cuts Osborne has made have only funded higher pay-outs to the State's creditors.

Osborne can't escape the blame for Britain's next bust. He put off balancing the books till tomorrow. For a real recovery, we need to face up to our economic problems today.


11 MAR 2016

We need to cut back on the credit cholesterol

I happened to be in a room full of bankers when the announcement came through that the ECB was about to create more cheap credit. Many of them were visibly pleased. That alone shows something has gone very wrong with our banking system.

Low interest rates and cheap credit bring forward spending from tomorrow to today. The problem is that when today becomes tomorrow, we'll have nothing left to spend. As Mervyn King puts it in his brilliant new book, we are digging deeper and deeper into tomorrow's demand.

One of the reasons the West's long-term GDP outlook is falling is the huge glut of chronic malinvestment that comes from manipulation of the money supply. Cheap credit is like cholesterol in the arteries of the economy. The West is already wheezing; if we carry on like this, we're heading for an economic heart attack.

The credit boom hasn't just inflated asset prices and enriched bankers. It has also laid an economic time bomb. Think of all the insurance firms and pension funds that rely on returns from low-risk assets. Because of ultra-low interest rates, they won't be able to provide the yields that millions of people are relying on in 10 or 20 years' time.

The fact this latest injection of credit comes from the European Central Bank is especially concerning. One of the only good things you used to be able to say about the euro was that it was managed less recklessly than the pound. When the euro was run like the old deutschmark, at least it had rigour. Today's euro is the worst of both worlds. No discipline, but more austerity.

Candy floss credit got us into this economic mess in the first place. We won't get out of it unless we restore sound money.


10 MAR 2016

Protectionism hurts the poorest

The prosperity we take for granted today couldn't have happened without free markets and free trade. That doesn't stop people – even presidential candidates - saying we'd be better off starting trade wars, and only buying goods made at home. But the fact remains: protectionism is the route to poverty.

Globalisation gets a bad press. When manufacturing moves from Britain or the US to China and India, it looks like we're losing out. But the result is that we get our clothes, shoes, computers, phones, and televisions much more cheaply. And lower prices don't just make us better off. They also increase demand, and create jobs.

As Adam Smith and David Ricardo realised 200 years ago, prosperity comes from specialisation. If each of us tried to be self-sufficient, we would all be living in prehistoric penury. Instead, we specialise in what we're best at, and exchange the product of our work for what we need.

The same applies to countries. Today, Britain's comparative advantage is in services. Other countries are best at heavy industry or agriculture. By specialising in services, we get more and better manufactured goods and agricultural produce than we would if we diverted our resources into making them ourselves.

Protectionism might seem like the solution for people who have lost out to globalisation. But its effect would be regressive - like the poll tax. It would force prices up, and employment down. That would hit the poorest hardest.

In many cases, protectionism isn't the antidote to industrial decline, but the cause. Decades of State subsidies are what made companies like British Leyland and General Motors incapable of beating foreign competition.

To revive our economy, we have to allow people to specialise in what they're best at, not prop up industries that are no longer productive. We need to learn from history, not live in it. The answer is freedom.


09 MAR 2016

Eurocrats can't control EU's own borders

The migrant crisis shows no signs of abating. Greece is overwhelmed. EU plans to settle millions of migrants have only encouraged more to come. Now the EU's latest agreement with Turkey will make a bad situation worse.

The new deal relies on trusting Turkey to stop illegal immigration from Syria – which it may not be able to do. Yet in return, Turkey will receive €6 billion from European taxpayers (that's £500 million from Britain) – double what was agreed a few months ago. Plus, visa-free access to Schengen countries for 75 million Turkish citizens will now start from June instead of September.

Turkey won't become an EU member with this deal, but Turks – in effect – will. I'm sure the Eurocrats will tell us there won't be much immigration from Turkey because of it. But officials have a history of seriously underestimating the effects of freedom of movement. Remember, they said there would be minimal immigration to Britain from Poland and Romania.

What's really bizarre is that this deal aims to prevent illegal migration by regularising it. For every migrant the EU sends back to Turkey, one migrant in Turkey will be settled in Europe. That's not a plan to solve the migrant crisis; it's a plan to normalise it.

The EU's ineptitude is a far cry from the Australian approach. It's now been two years since the last boat landed on Australian shores. Stopping the boats solved Australia's migrant crisis, and saved lives. Sensible leaders would follow Australia's example.

But are our leaders sensible? The EU can't control its borders. It can't manage its currency. It can't sort out its economy. It can't fix its banks.

The truth is EU leaders simply aren't up to basic statecraft. That's a big reason why it's safer for Britain to vote Leave.


08 MAR 2016

Hinkley Point is Osborne's gold giveaway moment

Gordon Brown's most disastrous deal was selling off our gold reserves for $275 an ounce (it's now worth $1,275 an ounce). George Osborne's Hinkley Point energy deal is turning into his gold giveaway moment.

Osborne announced his plan for a new nuclear plant at Hinkley Point amid much fanfare. The spin made it look great: Chinese money, French know-how, cleaner energy. But as I pointed out at the time, the cost is eye-wateringly high.

When I asked the Energy Minister to confirm that electricity generated at the new plant would be sold at market rates, she told me the plant "must represent value for money." Instead, Osborne's deal locks British taxpayers and consumers into paying at least £89.50/MWh for energy from Hinkley Point – double the current average price.

You would need to be as commercially inept as Gordon Brown not see what a dreadful deal this is. Even EDF, the company that is meant to be building the plant, can see it – in fact their finance director has just resigned because of it.

Osborne should accept that the failure of his plan in good grace, and scrap it.

There is a better approach to energy. Instead of subsidies, we need to set our energy market free. Our policy paper – Securing Britain's Energy Future - points the way.


08 MAR 2016

Mervyn King's book is right on the money

Mervyn King has written a fantastic book that diagnoses the problem with our banks. The cheap shot response would be to ask why he didn't take action when he had the power. But I don't think that's right. The important thing is that here is a central bank bureaucrat admitting, for the first time, that the big issue is fractional reserve banking.

King doesn't just point out that fractional reserve banking causes financial instability. What's really refreshing about his book is that he describes malinvestment – the excess creation of credit – in clear, easy-to-understand terms.

Whereas the great Austrian School economists, like Oskar Morgenstern, talked about Auflockerung – 'unlocking' – King coins the term 'unwinding.' He explains that to fix the financial system, we need to flush the candy floss credit out of the system.

There has been a surfeit of books about the banking crisis. What makes King's different is that he identifies the actual causes. Unlike Adair Turner's book, which claims regulators like him need more regulatory powers, King shows that fundamental change is required.

King proposes reining in the worst excesses of fractional reserve banking through a system of insurance liabilities. I still think my proposal – a legal distinction between deposit accounts and loan accounts (see After Osbrown, page 38ff.) - is a neater answer.

Whatever the best solution, one thing is clear: the fight against unrestrained fractional reserve banking is now mainstream.


07 MAR 2016

Does British democracy need to be renewed?

3.9 million votes for UKIP. One MP. Do you think British democracy needs fixing?

Read our latest policy paper: Renewing British Democracy. Then tell us what you think in our poll. 


07 MAR 2016

Brexit uncertainty? There's no certainty without control

"Brexit means uncertainty" reads the Remain scare tactic handbook. Isn't that an odd argument? The only way we can have any certainty about our future is to be in control of our own destiny. The real uncertainty comes from entrusting our future to EU elites.

Remainers like to pretend we don't know what life outside the EU looks like. Anyone would think Britain had never been an independent country before. Brexit means we continue to trade with the EU, but we are no longer governed by the EU. That's hardly a leap into the unknown.

What we actually don't know is what life inside the EU is going to look like. Over the last 40 years, the EU has transformed from a common market into a political union. In the last 20, it has introduced its own currency and incorporated Eastern Europe. In the last 10, it has introduced its own constitution, president, and foreign minister. Who knows what will it look like in another 40 years?

The likelihood is there will be more integration and more members. The PM's EU deal – if it is ever implemented – would bind Britain not to oppose more economic integration in the Eurozone. The EU's new deal with Turkey – allowing visa-free European travel to 75 million Turkish citizens – paves the way for Turkish membership. What else could be on the horizon? And what would it mean for us? We really don't know.

As long as the EU controls our borders, our laws, or our trade policy, we can't possibly know what they will look like. So if you want certainty, there's only one option: vote Leave, and take back control.


04 MAR 2016

Leave means Leave

I'm campaigning to secure a Leave vote in the EU referendum on June 23rd. I don't think it is helpful for people to speculate about second referendums. Voting to leave must mean leaving.

Across Europe in recent years, there have been a series of referendums on matters EU. Voters in Denmark, Ireland, and elsewhere said no to more EU, and were made to vote again until they gave the right answer. We're not going to see that here. Leave means leave.

Of course, once we've left the EU, Europe will still be there. Instead of being grumpy tenants, we'll become good neighbours. We will have trade arrangements, and we will cooperate. None of that means we stay in the EU.

Vote Leave on June 23rd to leave the EU. If you've not already signed up with Vote Leave, click here to do so now.


03 MAR 2016

Cheer up: technology is creating more and better jobs

Here's an astonishing cheer-up fact: between 1992 and 2014, the total number of UK jobs rose from 25 million to 31 million. That's an increase of 23%. To put that in context, the population grew by 12%. Even though we have more computers and more automation, there's much more work.

Ever since Ned Ludd, we've been encouraged to think there is a conflict between labour and technology. For over 200 years, we've been told machines are taking our jobs. It used to be factories and mills we were meant to fear. Today, it's delivery drones, driverless cars, and automatic check-out tills. But it was wrong then, and it's wrong now.

Yes, there may be a short-term conflict. But history shows that technology frees people to exchange their time, labour, and resources in better ways.

Just look at the trend. In another 22 years, there's bound to be even more technology. But we can also expect not just more jobs, but better jobs. People will be working fewer hours, for more pay, on more interesting things.

Think about your great, great, great, great-grandfather. He most likely worked in a field, from dawn till dusk, six days a week, for barely enough to live on. Imagine he could see what you do for a living: he'd probably say it's not real work.

Technology is making the world better. We can look forward to less boring, less repetitive, less strenuous work. So cheer up: we're making progress.


02 MAR 2016

Pointless Parliament?

Today is Estimates Day – when ministers seeks the consent of Parliament to tax and spend. If those we elected were doing their job properly, it would be a key moment. Instead, it is a ritualistic formality. Parliament has lost its purpose.

When Charles I attempted to bypass Parliament and levy ship money on every county in England, we cut his head off. What would those who fought at Marston moor think of the nodding donkeys who sit in Parliament now?

Parliament then was prepared to wage war over a few hundred thousand pounds' worth of taxes raised without their consent. Today the Commons will okay over £220 billion pounds' worth of public spending on the nod. There may not even be a vote.

How did we get to this sorry impasse? A key moment came in the 1930s, when the front benches colluded to remove from individual MPs the right to amend budgets. Since then, MPs can only vote for or against a package of figures presented to them by the Treasury.

Politicians have become play-actors, the script often written for them by senior civil servants. Real scrutiny of Government has given way to booing and cheering at Prime Minister's Questions. Independence of thought has been replaced with robotic repetition of party lines. Real representation of the people has been supplanted by slavish subservience to the Whips. We have a pantomime Parliament.

This is why our democracy is in disrepute.

Unsustainable national debt, uncontrolled borders, unaccountable Government. These are the products of Parliamentary powerlessness. When will the people revolt?


01 MAR 2016

The EU makes the City less competitive, and British banks less safe

Daniel Hodson, Jim Mellon, Neil Woodford. Top bankers and fund managers are debunking the Project Fear myth that Brexit would be bad for the City. Several are making the case that financial services will thrive without EU red tape. But there's another point we need to bear in mind too: EU rules don't just reduce profits; they threaten financial stability.

Ever since the financial crisis, the City has been firmly in the EU regulators' sights. "Quite right," you might think. "The banks caused the financial crisis. They need to be regulated."

Hold on a second, though. Yes, we need effective banking regulation. But who seriously thinks that's what the EU has given us?

Look at what's happening across the Channel. Last month, Deutschebank lost 40% of its value. The Eurozone is so dysfunctional that even ex-Bank of England governor Mervyn King can see it needs to be broken up, yet its leaders are pushing for still more integration. As our banking paper pointed out, the EU rules that were meant to prevent another financial crisis actually stop member states introducing higher capital requirements to keep their banks safe.

Instead of making the City more secure, EU regulation only makes it less competitive. It gives us the worst of both worlds.

In reality, much of the regulation is written to benefit big banks at the expense of smaller ones. It's no surprise that the firms that can afford an army of lobbyists to write the rules favour the status quo. But many others disagree. I know from when I worked in fund management that a lot of investors see not just the gains from leaving the EU, but the risks of staying.

We can't trust Brussels to manage our banks. Let's vote Leave, and take back control.


29 FEB 2016

The EU's economic certainty: no innovation, no growth

Innovation is the mark of a successful economy. 19th-century Britain became the richest nation on the planet with a century of invention that raised productivity and prosperity to unprecedented levels. How did we do it? Low taxes, cheap energy, light regulations, open markets, free trade, and sound money. Why is Europe stagnating today? Because the EU does the exact opposite.

Compare the EU to 19th-century Britain. Instead of low taxes, it demands ever higher contributions from member states. Instead of cheap energy, it drives our fuel bills up. Instead of light regulation, it imposes one-size-fits-all legislation on every conceivable product. Instead of open markets, it gives us quotas and subsidies. Instead of ensuring free trade, it's protectionist – imposing tariffs on non-EU goods. Instead of sound money, its broken currency has produced malinvestment on a vast scale.

The Remain camp is staking its campaign on scaring us into believing that the EU is the route to economic prosperity. But hang on a second: the EU is the world's only declining trade bloc. Unemployment in EU countries is skyrocketing. More world-leading high-tech innovation comes from Tel Aviv, in a country surrounded by hostile neighbours, than the so-called single market. In fact, major innovators – like the biotech firm BASF – are leaving the EU because of its suffocating red tape.

Over the next few months, Establishment figures will tell you that we can't risk the uncertainty of voting Leave. Well here's the certainty if we stay: no bureaucratic empire in human history has ever unleashed innovation and economic growth. Nothing the EU has done suggests it will be the first. The only way to create the conditions for innovation in Britain is to vote Leave.


26 FEB 2016

Want border control and fair immigration? Vote Leave

The latest migration figures released yesterday prove once again that we can't control our borders as long as we remain in the EU. But voting Leave isn't just about controlling the numbers; it's also about making possible a fair immigration system.

EU freedom of movement makes it impossible for the Prime Minister to fulfil his promise to cut immigration to the tens of thousands. He is consistently out by 300,000 a year.

The PM's claim that the "emergency brake" can cut the numbers is no more credible. It has already been debunked by his Cabinet colleague, Iain Duncan Smith, who predicts that numbers might even go up because of it. Besides, the brake isn't even in our hands.

But open borders aren't the only issue. Just as problematic is that EU rules make us discriminate against immigrants solely on the basis of their nationality.

People want to come to Britain because we have a sophisticated economy with global reach. To sustain that economy, we need to be able to attract the brightest and the best from across the world. But instead, our system favours those who happen to hold an EU passport.

The EU is the world's only declining trade bloc. It is shrinking both economically and demographically. Meanwhile, China, India, and South Korea are producing highly talented graduates who could be assets to British businesses. Yet EU rules mean we are turning them away in order to allow in unlimited EU citizens, irrespective of their skills.

We need to be able to control our borders. We need an Australian, points-based immigration system so that we judge people by their talents, not where they come from. How do we do it? Vote Leave.


25 FEB 2016

Direct democracy - not Brussels bureaucracy - will save Europe

It's still four months until the referendum, but the prospect of the British people demanding Brexit is already breaking the continental consensus. Dutch voters now want their own referendum on EU membership. Democracy looks to be contagious.

Democracy – especially direct democracy – is antithetical to the European project. The Brussels bureaucracy is predicated on top-down, one-size-fits-all government that takes no account of differences between countries, and can't be held to account by the people.

Time and again, Euro elites have demonstrated their contempt for the will of European voters. Just look at what they did to the mother of democracy, Greece. When voters elected an anti-austerity government, the parasitic paymasters in Brussels forced through an even tougher austerity package just to show them.

But there is nothing Eurocrats hate more than a referendum. Which is why, in the past, it has simply ignored them. When voters in several EU countries gave the 'wrong' answer on the EU Constitution in 2007, Brussels first made them vote again and then decided to bypass the voters altogether and introduce it as the Lisbon Treaty instead.

But now the Euro empire is creaking. Like in 1848, the people are rising up against the remote, elitist ancien regime. But unlike in 1848, the change isn't coming through violent revolution, but peacefully at the ballot box.

Over the next few months, the Remain campaign will accuse Eurosceptics of being anti-European. They are so wrong. 300 years ago, Britain imported a Dutch king, and with him limited, constitutional monarchy. Today, we are exporting direct democracy back to Holland. This referendum is Britain's chance to spread the European ideas that underpinned the Enlightenment across the continent again. Brexit can set Europe free.


24 FEB 2016

My favourite Brexit bull stories

Most countries in the world aren't part of the EU - and much of the rest of the world is doing a lot better than the EU. This obvious truth hasn't stopped Downing Street and the Remain Campaign pumping out a lot of scare stories warning of the dire consequences of voting to leave.

Here are my favourite Brexit bull stories:

Football will be in jeopardy, warned Karen Brady, preposterously.
What's that game they play in Brazil and Argentina involving 22 men kicking a ball?

Brexit would damage Heathrow and Gatwick, airport bosses told us.
Anyone would think they didn't have planes in China, India, or the USA.

Welsh farming would collapse, predicted Labour's Carwyn Jones.
Because apparently there were no farms before we joined the EU .... or something.

Science would suffer, claimed Boris Johnson's little brother Jo.
Somehow he forgot to mention that the European Clinical Trials Directive has killed off vital research into new lifesaving drugs.

Asset management would flee from the City to Dublin and Luxembourg, screamed the FT.
Just as the City collapsed after we refused to join the euro fifteen years ago.

The Six Nations rugby wouldn't be the same, tweeted Welsh Remain, for no other reason than Wales were playing a rugby match.
It's not like France and Italy joined our Home Nations tournament, is it?

London would collapse, professed another sock-puppet group for the European project.
Not a view shared by London's most successful mayor, Boris.

Germany would no longer trade with us, threatened a German MP.
Except that Britain is Germany's largest export market. Does he seriously think Audi, Siemens, and Bosch will stop wanting our custom just because we leave a political union?

Brexit would trigger the disintegration of the EU, cautioned Barclays.
And the downside?


23 FEB 2016

If 5,000 ISIS fighters have entered the EU, how does the EU make Britain safer?

The Remain campaign claims leaving the EU threatens our national security. But how safe is Britain in the EU? The head of Europol, Rob Wainright, reports that up to 5,000 ISIS fighters are already back in Europe. The real threat to our security is the EU's failure to control its borders.

When I put the Europol chief's point to the Home Secretary in Parliament yesterday, she claimed being outside the borderless Schengen zone is enough to keep us safe. But her answer is disingenuous. As her Cabinet colleague Iain Duncan Smith has said, we can't control our borders for as long as we are forced to accept free movement of people from the EU.

The threat of another terror attack in Europe because of the lack of border controls isn't idle. In fact, recent EU actions may have made it more likely. The deal with Turkey that will give 75 million Turkish citizens visa-free access to Schengen countries, along with residency for 400,000 Syrian refugees, from October of this year risks making it even easier for ISIS fighters to get in.

There is no point fighting a war against ISIS in Syria and Iraq if we don't also rigorously control our own borders. The EU's determination to maintain free movement come what may prioritises federalism above security. Voting Leave is the safer choice.


22 FEB 2016

Vote Leave, end managed decline

Since World War II, the governing philosophy of the British Establishment has been managed decline. Decade after decade, we've been told we're not strong enough to make it on our own. The pro-EU camp is appealing to the same backward-looking defeatism today. But we don't need to resign ourselves to self-doubt and decline. The way to end it is to vote Leave.

Europhiles have long tried to portray Eurosceptics as parochial, pessimistic, 'little Englanders.' It's not just a smear, it's a smokescreen.

Our case is based on freedom, democracy, and internationalism – just read the extraordinary pieces by Michael Gove and Boris Johnson. We're arguing that if we stay true to the ideals that made Britain great in the past, we will have a bright future.

It's the Europhile case that is really based on parochialism and pessimism. Remainers see Britain as too small to be anything more than a province in a European political union. But it's more than that: they have so little faith in freedom and democracy as the engines of progress that they are willing to sell out both for the sake of hiding behind the tariff wall of the cosy Euro club.

The EU cannot survive. In fact, it is already failing fast. Ultimately, the European project is based on a conceit that human economic and social affairs can best be organised by grand design. The would-be designers in Whitehall have lost confidence in their ability to get the big decisions right, which is why they want to defer to technocrats in Brussels. Instead they should draw the opposite conclusion: stop trying to organise Britain by grand design, and set people free to run their own lives.

We don't need to abandon ourselves to decay. Let's vote Leave, and place a vote of confidence in the British people.


19 FEB 2016

The 'renegotiation' charade is over. Let the campaign begin!

This morning the PM will come back from Brussels duff deal in hand. Months of talks that we were promised would reform Britain's relationship with the EU have changed nothing. Today marks the end of the 'new EU' myth. Now the real campaign begins.

The PM intended these talks to show that the question before Britain wasn't In or Out. He wanted to show there was a third way – that the EU could change. Instead, he has proved it can't. We now know categorically that the EU will hold onto the 'acquis communautaire' come what may. Powers once taken by Brussels will never be given back.

It's because the EU will never stop centralising that the stakes are so high. This referendum isn't just In or Out; it's now or never.

The important thing in the Leave campaign is that Leave wins. It doesn't matter who leads it. It doesn't matter who said what about which campaign group. It doesn't matter who takes the credit.

Instead of focusing on the few big names, we need to look toward the many. To win the referendum, we need to build a broad coalition of voters – bigger than any political party has assembled in recent history. If the campaign is narrow and sectional, we will lose.

We need multiple voices to reach out to people of multiple different backgrounds and opinions. We have to emphasise that people who disagree on everything else should vote Leave to ensure that those disagreements are thrashed out in a democratic, sovereign Parliament, not ignored by remote officials. Above all, we need to be positive, and show that Britain will be better off out.

We have four months to secure a bright future for Britain. Let's work together to Leave.


18 FEB 2016

Our national security depends on NATO, not the EU

What keeps the peace in Europe? Euro elites like to pretend it's the EU. Yet for most of the last 70 years, only NATO has stood between Western Europe and war. The latest Russian incursion into British air space yesterday should remind us that NATO remains vital to our national security today.

Europhiles have long tried to argue that the European project ensured peace after the Second World War. It's nonsense. Almost as soon as the WWII ended, Europe was divided against itself again – only along different battle lines. The Cold War gave Western Europe a common foe, and a common interest. What kept it safe was NATO's military might and nuclear umbrella.

The USSR's collapse led many Western policymakers to believe that Russian imperialism was over. Despite proving that assumption wrong, Vladimir Putin has done nothing to dampen their optimism.

Hoping to pacify Putin, President Obama openly sought to 'reset' relations with Russia. He scaled back missile defence shields in Eastern Europe. He let Putin to cross his 'red lines' with impunity. He allowed Russia to become the regional powerbroker in the Middle East. But the result is that as NATO has receded, Russia has filled the vacuum.

In recent years, Russia has invaded Georgia and Ukraine. Russian bombing raids in Syria are aimed not at destroying ISIS, but at enabling the brutal Assad regime to crush other rebel groups. Russian operatives poisoned Alexander Litvinenko on British soil.

The increasing regularity of Russian attempts to probe the NATO air defences in the UK, not to mention in Turkey, shows that the threat she poses to our security and that of our allies is growing. NATO's recent decline has made us less safe. Euro-federalism won't protect us. We need to sustain the international alliance that does.


17 FEB 2016

MEPs' power to reject the PM's deal means there is no deal

Yesterday, European Parliament President Martin Schulz confirmed MEPs wouldn't ratify the Prime Minister's so-called EU deal until after the referendum – and could decide not to approve it. To all intents and purposes, that means there is no deal.

Cameron's claim that his 'renegotiation' would be "legally binding" was baseless from the beginning. A binding renegotiation would require a treaty change. The vague promise of a future treaty change carries no legal weight at all. Schulz's comments just highlight that whatever the PM claims to have agreed is still at the EU's discretion.

Of course, even if the European Parliament approves the agreement, the EU will still hold all the cards. Even the 'emergency brake' – the only remotely substantive change – wouldn't be in our hands. And that is assuming the Eurocracy doesn't water down the duff deal even more.

The emptiness of the 'renegotiation' proves how inconsequential our influence in the EU really is. I suspect that even the PM, committed Europhile that he is, must be surprised by how fruitless his endless talks with European leaders have been. If the EU won't give us anything we want on this fundamental question, why expect it to represent our interests on anything else?

Polls show support for Leave is growing as people see through the spin. If the PM has achieved anything, it is to show us how much sovereignty we have given up.

The starting gun on the referendum race will be fired on Friday. The choice is binary: keep the Commission cartel in control, or take back our democracy. Let's make sure we win!


15 FEB 2016

The digital revolution will make journalism better

Media insiders seem miserable that the Independent will become the first national newspaper to ditch print and move online. But there's reason to be optimistic: the Internet has made a lot of industries more efficient – and it will do the same for journalism.

The digital revolution has brought about the biggest expansion in access to information since the invention of the printing press. The Internet has made it cheaper, easier, and quicker than ever to find out the latest news.

Journalists sometimes complain that the replacement of traditional reporting by blogs and Twitter brings down quality. They bemoan the clickbait and dumbing down. Many are assuming that's the direction the Independent will now go in.

I'm not so sure: I suspect one reason newspapers have resorted to clickbait online is to subsidise lossmaking print editions. In the long-term, scrapping print could free up resources for more serious investigative journalism.

Besides, if the Internet is breaking the big, corporate cartel that used to dominate the industry, that can only be good for consumers. As in any industry, competition drives quality up. In fact, there are already a number of genuinely interesting online-only media outlets: CapX, the International Business Times, the Daily Beast.

Disruptive innovation is at the root of human progress. So don't weep for the Indy; it's going to a better place. 


15 FEB 2016

Betting on the EU is the risky option

Last week, European bank shares collapsed in value. Investors bet against the Eurozone in a big way. So why are Establishment elites still telling us it’s safe to stake our economic future on the EU? 

The European project has been an economic failure. It has led to sovereign debt crises in Greece, Spain, Italy, and Portugal. It has given Europeans years of economic stagnation and unemployment. It has helped to make Europe the world’s only declining trading bloc. 

For all the systemic economic problems Britain has, we’re in a better position than the Eurozone. That’s part of the reason so many EU migrants are coming to work here. But the Eurozone is a risk to our future too: if we’re too exposed to the Eurozone, its problems will become ours. 

The amount of trade Britain does with the EU has been consistently declining. But Brussels regulations still keep it artificially high. Tariffs on goods from outside the EU, coupled with the fact we can’t strike our own free trade deals with non-EU countries, make us depend on EU trade more than we otherwise would. 

Any investor will tell you that the safest option is always to diversify your portfolio. Overreliance on one asset is risky. If we leave the EU, we’ll keep trading with Europe, but we’ll be free to make our own trade deals with non-EU countries too. Diversifying our trade links is what will give us economic security. 

Hitching our economy to the sinking EU ship is a risk we can’t afford to take. The safe option is to vote leave, and take back control. 

1.       Listen to the markets: betting on Europe is the risky option


12 FEB 2016

Take a Short cut: UKIP in Parliament shows we can do more with less

The cost of doing research has fallen. Google finds more information in seconds than a team of people can produce in days. So why were Opposition MPs lobbying for more taxpayers' money for SpAds yesterday? It's the Westminster cartel again.

As the only MP for a party that got 3.9 million votes, I was entitled to a huge allocation of Short money funding for Opposition parties. But unlike the rest, I decided to take only a fraction of it. We were determined to do more with less.

Several months on, our small team in Parliament proves efficient politics is possible. Look at our output:

Our work has triggered two Westminster Hall debates. We are holding ministers to account, and offering genuine alternatives to the failed orthodoxies of the Establishment elites. And we're just getting started.

The big, corporate Opposition parties claim they can't be effective without masses of public money. In fact, the opposite is true: parties that rely on ever-increasing public subsidies have a vested interest in Big Government. That means they can't hold it to account.

It's because we've shown parties can do more with less that the politics subsidy is now being cut. On Short money, the Government is following UKIP's lead. We stood up for taxpayers against the Westminster cartel, and won. How's that for effective Opposition?


11 FEB 2016

Coming together for Brexit

Brilliant news for Brexiteers: yesterday ICM showed Leave ahead for the first time since 2013. It also showed that 17% of voters are still undecided. So it was great to get together yesterday with Eurosceptics from all parties to make the internationalist, optimistic, engaging case for voting Leave.

Yesterday the Conservative MEP David Campbell Bannerman hosted a fantastic event called the Good Life After Brexit. 

It brought together speakers from across the spectrum: Labour MP Graham Stringer, DUP MP Ian Paisley Jr., Conservatives Steve Baker, Bernard Jenkin, David Davis, Liam Fox, and John Redwood, UKIP leader Nigel Farage, and Vote Leave's Matthew Elliott.

What was great about it wasn't just the variety of people who came together. It was also the message. 

To win the referendum, we need to reach out beyond die-hard Eurosceptics to people who may never have thought about the EU before. We need to counter the scaremongering of David Cameron and co. in Project Fear.

That means presenting the positive case for voting Leave: making sure people understand that we will have better trade links abroad, more money for our public services, real control of everything from energy to banks to fish stocks, and  genuine freedom.

The ruling elites fear Brexit because they fear the people.

Eurosceptics need to show the British public that this is our opportunity to take back control of our country and our lives.

Let's make sure we take it!


10 FEB 2016

Cheap credit has crashed the economy

Since the financial crisis, ruling elites have bet the ranch on one thing: cheap credit. The idea is banks keep lending money they don't have. People go on borrowing and spending more. The problem is this approach is fundamentally wrong.

Monetary stimulus didn't start in 2007. Policymakers have been doing it since the mid-1980s. They tried it after the market crash in 1987. And again after the Asian financial crisis in 1997. And again after the collapse of LTCM in 1998. And again after the dotcom crash in 2000.

Every single time there has been a market correction, governments and central banks artificially inflated markets again – and provoked a worse correction to come.

Today's news shows people are expecting the same thing now. Pundits are asking not whether Janet Yellen will cut interest rates, but when.

We can't go on like this.

Credit does not exist to be a tool for officials to direct the economy. One person's credit should be another's savings, or deferred consumption.

The problem with the last 30 years of cheap money is that there is no correlation between credit and savings. Artificial credit is no one's deferred consumption.

The only thing cheap credit has created is malinvestment: buildings that should never have been built, businesses that should never have taken off, ventures that should never have been started.

Chronic malinvestment means there will eventually be an almighty day of reckoning. It could be now.

A good shorthand for the cheap credit orthodoxy is Osbrown economics: the monetary consensus of the political Establishment. The groupthink of the people who attend Davos.

When the day of reckoning comes, many will be looking for a way out. An alternative to the failed orthodoxy. That's why I wrote a paper called After Osbrown.

If you're writing an investor note in a City firm today, you could do worse than taking a look.


10 FEB 2016

The markets are right: Europe's banks aren't safe

Yesterday, Europe's banks entered a new crisis as their shares plummeted. Why? Didn't central banks say the financial sector was safe? Our banking paper explains what's gone wrong.

The banking system was meant to be fixed after the financial crisis. We were told banks were holding more capital, making fewer risky investments, being more prudent.

Yesterday's market rout showed it's not true.

To understand why, just look at what prompted investors to panic now: the EU's decision to give up on taxpayer bail-outs, and force bank depositors and creditors to bail in failed banks instead.

Think about this for a second: the idea that the taxpayer might not be on the hook if the banks fail wouldn't bother markets unless the banks were at serious risk of failure. What this panic shows is that investors were counting on taxpayer bail-outs. In other words, nothing has changed since 2007.

A few months ago, UKIP in Parliament published a policy paper explaining why another banking crisis was inevitable. Capital requirements for banks are still far too low. Too many dodgy assets – like the sovereign debt of EU member states – are still being labelled risk-free. The Bank of England's stress test was far too lenient.

It's no surprise, though, that the banks haven't been fixed. Everything policymakers have done since the financial crisis has perpetuated the problem. Banks have been subsidised with low interest rates and public deposit insurance. They have been encouraged to take big gambles without bearing the risk.

The banking cartel needs to be broken. Banks should be genuinely competitive, not propped up by the public purse. We need an alternative to the failed Brown/Osborne consensus – as I wrote in After Osbrown.

Our paper points the way to real reform.


09 FEB 2016

Anglo-French friendship shows we don't need the EU

David Cameron's latest EU scare tactic – claiming a vote to Leave would bring Calais migrants to Britain - isn't just dishonest, it's absurd. In reality, Britain's independent, bilateral border treaty with France is a great example of what can be achieved without the EU.

The reason Britain can carry out border checks at Calais is the bilateral Treaty of Le Touquet. Leaving the EU can't affect it one iota. Besides, France is committed to keeping it. Only 4 months ago, Bernard Cazeneuve, the Interior Minister, called the idea of scrapping the treaty "a foolhardy path," saying "a humanitarian disaster would ensue."

The PM's fearmongering makes it sound like Britain's international ties would fall apart without the EU. But actually Britain's friendship with France – historically our fiercest foe - shows how much can be achieved with bilateral treaties.

A century before the European Common Market, Britain and France established free trade – thanks to the Cobden-Chevalier Treaty of 1860. We formalised peace with the Entente Cordiale in 1904. Just 6 years ago, we agreed 50 years of mutual defence and security cooperation in the Lancaster House Treaties.

David Cameron's pretence that the EU helps us secure our borders would be laughable if the subject weren't so serious. Isn't this the PM who promised to cut immigration to the tens of thousands, but overshoots his own target by 300,000 every year? He knows as well as anyone that as long as we stay in the EU, we have no control of our borders - that's why he is putting up this smokescreen.

Britain and France prove that independent, sovereign European nation states can cooperate perfectly well – much better, in fact, than the dysfunctional EU. We don't need to be afraid of taking back control.


08 FEB 2016

Yes to green technology, no to subsidy

Wrightbus is currently testing new hybrid buses that use power recovered from their brakes. Where did this clean, green tech come from? Think it was funded by State subsidies? Guess again. It's from a completely commercial industry: Formula 1 racing.

F1 green tech is transforming transport – and not just on the roads. Williams F1, which designed the original flywheel system being copied on the buses, is working on similar technology for trains. It is even inspiring hybrid technology EasyJet is developing for planes.

Did I mention all this is being pioneered in Britain?

The green tech trickledown is exclusively the result of market demand. F1's cutting-edge engineering innovations are commercially viable thanks to millions of racing fans worldwide – the kind of people Big Green lobbies against.

According to Establishment orthodoxy, this shouldn't happen: green technology is only supposed to come about through redistribution by the State, subsidising eco-friendly manufacturers at the expense of consumers.

But the subsidy model doesn't work. It means manufacturers never have to make competitive products because they can always rely on handouts from the taxpayer. Subsidies are nothing more than corporate welfare.

Subsidies may even hold back viable clean tech. To quote flywheel developers Torotrak: "The conventional wisdom, boosted by government subsidies, suggests electrification is the only way to curb fuel use in cars, but flywheel technology could be a cheaper and more environmentally-friendly way."

Last week, UKIP in Parliament published a new paper, co-authored by UKIP's Energy Spokesman Roger Helmer MEP. We make the case that to see a real renewable revolution in energy, we need to scrap redistribution and set the market free.

If we genuinely want green tech to take off, we need to say yes to new technology, no to subsidy.


05 FEB 2016

More power to the sheriffs

Perhaps it's because it's the term I used when I first proposed directly police chiefs over a decade ago. Maybe it's because there's something a little bureaucratic and pedestrian about the word "commissioner". Whatever the reason, I still think we should call Police and Crime Commissioners sheriff.

When locally elected sheriffs .... sorry .... Police & Crime Commissioners were introduced in 2012, they were met with a lot of cynicism. But four years on, PCCs have proved their worth. The Home Secretary's new plan to give them more power is a step in the right direction.

The idea behind elected sheriffs / PCCs was to make police services accountable to local people, and put a single person in charge. Experience shows they have succeeded. The Home Affairs Select Committee's PCC report confirmed: "PCCs have provided greater clarity of leadership for policing."

PCCs have also had one big success: overthrowing the Association of Chief Police Officers. That means policing now reflects local priorities, instead of national, top-down directives from unaccountable officials.

Of course, not all PCCs have been brilliant. But that's the beauty of electing them: commissioners who fail to serve local people properly can be turfed out in elections this May.

Critics of the PCCs said they would politicise the police and disempower the professionals. But recent reports of historic police scandals and cover-ups show how important accountability is. It's not enough just to trust the professionals: institutions need to be responsible to the people they work for.

Yesterday, the Home Secretary not only confirmed that PCCs are here to stay, but announced plans to increase their powers over criminal justice. This is good news: the Crown Prosecution Service is as closed to the public as the police were. It would be fantastic if PCCs could hold it to account.


04 FEB 2016

When the electorate's angry, you need a smile to win

For months, everyone has said Donald Trump is way ahead in the Republican race. The liberal media – his top publicists - built him up as a bogeyman. But in the Iowa caucus, something else happened: Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio stole his thunder. Authenticity and optimism trumped anger.

Cruz and Rubio show that successful anti-politics isn't about playing the electorate's anger back to them. Both got elected to the Senate in the anti-Washington Tea Party wave, but both channelled the frustration of the electorate into real political programmes. Cruz is campaigning as a conviction conservative and Constitutionalist. Rubio as a free-market optimist.

In Iowa, Cruz showed the Establishment can be beaten. He ran on an anti-subsidy platform in an ethanol-subsidy state. Political practitioners say that can never work. The state's governor even campaigned against him. But he went on to win the caucus anyway. Iowans showed the Establishment they can't be so easily bought.

Marco Rubio – who came a close third to Trump's second – surged in Iowa at the last minute because he campaigned on a vision for the future. He gave voters an optimistic alternative to Trump's abuse and vitriol.

Far from the anti-Establishment crusader he pretends to be, Trump could turn out to be the Establishment's alternative to Cruz. Mainstream media and Republican elites are starting to support him because he is much less of a threat than Cruz to the crony corporatist cartel. Trump's protectionism, Big Business background, and indifference to Big Government would continue the status quo politics Washington insiders love.

But real supporters of anti-politics should feel positive. Iowa showed that the people have more wisdom than sneering Establishment elites believe. Authenticity and optimism are what will make America great again.


03 FEB 2016

New EU deal? We don't even have our hands on the emergency brake

David Cameron's deal with Donald Tusk was meant to show Britain's relationship with Brussels could be reformed. Instead, it has proven the EU is incapable of change. The only way to keep Britain safe from the broken European project is to vote Leave.

We always knew the "tough renegotiation" was just spin, designed to mask the fact that the PM hadn't really changed anything. But the emptiness of the deal has surprised even Eurosceptics: there really is no substance to it at all.

Take the so-called "emergency brake" – the PM's signature moratorium on in-work benefits for EU workers. It's hardly a massive change, but he couldn't even secure that. Instead, any benefits restriction could only happen in exceptional circumstances, and at the sole discretion of the European Council. We don't even have our hands on the brake.

The same is true of the "red card," which was supposed to allow national parliaments to veto EU legislation. In practice, it means 55% of legislators across 28 member states would have to agree to block legislation, and that would only trigger a "comprehensive discussion" in the European Council.

This "renegotiation" was supposed to show that we could bring back control from Brussels without leaving the EU. Instead, it has proven we can't. There will be no repatriation of powers, no restoration of Parliamentary sovereignty, no national supremacy over borders, courts, trade, energy, employment, tax, fish – the list is endless. The bureaucrats in Brussels are still in charge.

So the British people have a simple decision to make: do we stay in this unreformed, undemocratic, reactionary political project? Or do we take back control of our country and our future?

There is only one sensible choice: we need to vote Leave.


02 FEB 2016

Mortgaging Whitehall to the Gulf sums up Osbornomics

The Department of Health is subject to sharia law. You read that right: to turn London into the "Islamic finance capital of the world," George Osborne secretly made three Whitehall buildings the property of Middle Eastern banks under an Islamic bond scheme, so they are now governed by Islamic law. The question is: why?

Many people will find the idea that an external legal code applies to the heart of British Government disquieting – and rightly so. But there is a more disturbing question: why is the Chancellor using public assets to prop up a bond scheme? Or put it another way: if the scheme were viable in the private market, why would he need to subsidise it?

The truth, I suspect, is that this is classic Osborne corporatism. Like his dodgy tax deal with Google, and his Northern Powerhouse subsidies, this stinks of favouritism for Big Islamic Banks and oil sheikhs that may benefit the Chancellor but sells British taxpayers short.

But if you're outraged about a few buildings being mortgaged to powerful foreign interests, just think about the public finances more broadly: the Government is totally dependent on borrowed money. We're still running massive deficits every year. Total declared public debt is over £1.5 trillion. The whole country is being mortgaged.

If just £200 million of debt means the Department of Health has to be sharia-compliant, what kind of leverage over Britain do you think £1.5 trillion buys?

Debt and corporatism led Britain to financial ruin in 2007. But instead of changing course from Gordon Brown, Osborne has kept on going. To be a successful sovereign country again, Britain needs to change course: that means balanced public finances, free markets, and sound money.


01 FEB 2016

Trust in technology

Tech sceptics often fear the Internet is inhuman. We're so wrapped up in the global village, they say, we're forgetting how to build real human relationships. Turns out it's not true: technology is actually helping us to trust each other.

The Internet – as Wired explains - is building new networks of trust. Yelp tells you if you can trust a restaurant. Uber allows you to track the stranger who drives you home. Dating apps allow people to get to know each other before they meet in person.

"But hold on," you say. "Aren't all these open to abuse?"

Obviously the Internet isn't vice-free: it provides a platform for anonymous trolls, scammers, and stalkers too. But here's the thing: the Internet is providing much greater accountability than what it has replaced.

People used to put their faith in big, central institutions. The Gentleman in Whitehall was meant to keep us safe. But we've seen that was all a mirage: Parliament, Government, the media, the regulators, the church, the police have all been exposed for scandals, cover-ups, negligence, and corruption. Popular faith in national institutions is at an all-time low.

So instead of trusting institutions, people are starting to trust each other again. How? Through technology. The Internet enables open data and transparency, so that people can make informed decisions instead of putting blind faith in a remote bureaucrat to decide for them.

Amid the bad stories that get reported about Uber or Airbnb, let's not lose sight of the overall good story: technology is gradually restoring our faith in each other.


29 JAN 2016

America's Presidential primaries have lessons for our democracy

Next week, the Iowa caucuses kick off the US Presidential race in earnest. So far, British coverage has been transfixed by Donald Trump. But the Presidential primaries are much more interesting for what they can teach us about democracy.

Different states' electoral systems embody different models of democracy.

The Iowa caucuses are relatively restrictive: only party members can attend, and there is only one caucus location per precinct. As a result, turnout tends to be low, and the candidates that do best will those that appeal to a narrow, self-selecting group.

At the other end of the spectrum, fifteen states – from Alabama to Wisconsin – have open primaries. Anyone can cast a vote – not just party members. That means the winning candidate is more likely to be someone with broad appeal.

A big problem with our democracy today is that a narrow, zealous minority gets to choose who is in office, while the vast majority are so fed up with the political class, they are totally apathetic. Democracy has been subverted; as William Butler Yeats put it, "the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."

The aim should be to do the opposite: energise the best people to come out and vote, and ensure the winner has a real democratic mandate. The answer already exists in fifteen states: open primaries.

But what do we have in Britain? The Iowa caucuses are a free-for-all compared to the selection process for candidates here. A tiny minority of voters pick their party's local candidate for Parliament. Many candidates are special advisers parachuted in by the central party machine. Parliament has become a self-selecting cartel.

If we want to restore our democracy, we need to burst the Westminster bubble: open primaries are part of the solution. The rest is all part of The Plan.


28 JAN 2016

Don't panic about Apple's slowdown: that's how capitalism is meant to work

Apple's slowing sales have made a lot of people panic. But for consumers it could actually be good news: Apple is selling less because other manufacturers are catching up. Capitalist competition is what makes producers more creative and consumers better off.

One of the big myths about capitalism is that it allows a stable, wealthy elite to line their pockets with profits. But that's not how it works: in a free market, a company that makes a groundbreaking new product will face massive competition from others who see an opportunity to imitate it. As they catch up, its profits will consistently decrease. The only way to stay on top is to keep creating and innovating.

Don't believe me? Think about some of the world's most successful corporations today: Apple, Google, Microsoft, Walmart. Where were they 30 years ago? Google didn't even exist. Now think about some of the biggest corporations then? IBM, DuPont, Bethlehem Steel – which has long since disappeared.

The big names have changed, and they'll change again. Who knows what Apple will be doing in 30 years' time? Maybe they won't exist. Maybe they'll focus on Apple Pay and become a bank. Either, way disruptive innovation will change the market - and transfer wealth from elites to consumers.

It's the industries in which the big names haven't changed that should make us suspicious: big banks, energy, American car manufacturers. Too often, the reason they survive is because they have colluded with Government to rig the rules and keep out the competition. Too often, the taxpayer bails them out – transferring wealth from ordinary people to the corporate elites. That's not capitalism; that's crony corporatism.

I hope Apple meets the competition with wonderful new innovations. But if its competitors pick up the baton and out-innovate Apple, so much the better! Market-driven innovation is what makes all of us better off.


27 JAN 2016

Fed up with big corporate tax avoidance? Vote Leave

Google is in the news for avoiding UK corporation tax. It's not the only multinational to do it: Starbucks and Apple have done the same. So how come our Government can't do anything about it? Because of the EU - and for two key reasons.

First, EU law allows multinational corporations to pay tax on European revenue in whichever EU member state they claim to be based. So companies obviously pick the state with the lowest tax rates. This is a tax loophole the EU intentionally created.

So, despite having thousands of employees in the UK, Google denies having a 'permanent establishment' in the UK, instead claiming it is a UK 'branch' of its Irish operation. It therefore avoids tax in the UK.

Second, EU law prevents the UK clamping down on tax-avoidance. One wheeze is for a company to move intellectual property offshore. It then pays licence fees to that offshore entity, shifting its profits from the UK to a tax haven. UK law seeks to prevent this by levying a 25% withholding tax on licence fees transferred to a tax haven.

However, Holland does not apply any such tax and EU law stops the UK applying a withholding tax on transfers to a Dutch company. Therefore multinationals set up Dutch companies to channel licence fees from their UK company to whichever tax haven holds their intellectual property, thereby avoiding UK tax.

Here's the key point: for as long as Britain stays in the EU, we can't close Google's tax loophole, or Starbucks', or Facebook's. Our Government is bound by EU law, and is powerless to change it.

We cannot demand that Google pay its fair share of UK tax unless we take back control of our tax law from Brussels. The British people have the power to change the rules: the solution is to vote Leave.


27 JAN 2016

Low interest rates make pensioners poorer to keep bankers rich

British people are living longer, healthier lives. That's fantastic! But we're also facing a problem: the Bank of England is making it harder to save for retirement than ever before.

Mark Carney recently announced he would be keeping interest rates at record lows of 0.5% for an eighth consecutive year. Borrowers will see that as good news. But it's very bad news for savers – and people with pensions most of all.

Artificially low interest rates are making it far too hard for private pension funds to get a return on investments. Years of low yields mean many funds are in crisis – or have had to stake their customers' retirements on higher-risk assets. Either way, savers suffer.

Low interest rates hurt insurers too, for the same reason. If investment returns are lower, premiums have to be higher - meaning policy holders have to pick up the tab.

In every case, the debasement of currency transfers wealth from ordinary people to wealthy corporate elites.

At the same time, the State pension is in crisis. We know pension liabilities are unfunded in the long-term. Where's the security for retirement there?

Pension funding should be a policy priority. Instead it's being brushed under the carpet. As the pressure on State pensions grows, it's all the more important for people to be able to save independently. It's time to stop putting bankers first, and raise the rates.


26 JAN 2016

British business will boom after Brexit but suffer if we stay

More and more businesses are debunking the BSE myth that Brexit will damage our economy. The question we should be asking is not about the risks of leaving the EU, but the risks of staying.

Today, Unilever became the latest major manufacturer to say that Brexit would make no difference to its future plans in Britain. Toyota and Nissan have already stated the same.

"That's all very well," I hear you say. "But what about the businesses that want Britain to stay?"

That's true: there's Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Bank of America - the bankers who brought us the last financial crisis, and are now trying to buy the referendum. There's the super-rich elites David Cameron was trying so hard to impress at Davos. Are these really people who have Britain's best interests at heart?

The reason parts of Big Business love the EU is that the EU is a cosy corporatist club. It enables a tiny clique to rig the rules and suffocate the competition.

The people telling us Britain can't survive Brexit are the same people who said we couldn't survive outside the euro. In fact, the then CEO of Unilever, Niall Fitzgerald, told us, "Britain will ...lose influence, investment, jobs, and economic growth." But look at Britain – and Unilever – today, and then look at Europe.

If European economic union is such a good idea, why are Continental countries in a state of economic emergency? Why is Eurozone unemployment sky-high? Why are EU migrants queueing up to work in Britain?

The European project has proved to be an economic disaster. Shackling Britain to more European integration would mean Britain faced the same economic future as Greece, Spain, and France. Tell me again how that makes us better off?


25 JAN 2016

BT Openreach is the Internet's Network Rail

Ask Essex commuters their opinion on Network Rail, and you won't find many who think it should be the model for national infrastructure projects. So is why the Government using exactly the same model for broadband?

Network Rail is an unaccountable public monopoly. BT Openreach is an unaccountable private monopoly. Just as Network Rail controls the whole of our railways, BT Openreach controls our broadband infrastructure. It faces no competition, and has total leverage over its clients. So in both cases, the result is the same: poor service for consumers.

BT Openreach has received £1.7 billion of taxpayers' money to make broadband faster. Yet 5.7 million people across Britain are still stuck with Internet connections that don't meet the industry's minimum standard. And that doesn't just affect households, but businesses too. BT's poor service is costing Britain money – and the Government is rewarding it for failure.

That's why I signed a cross-party report calling on the regulator Ofcom to hold BT to account. The report's main recommendation is that Openreach should be separate from BT, which as a service provider as well as the infrastructure owner has an unfair advantage.

I think we can go further still. Making Openreach an independent private monopoly won't solve the core issue. We need to start looking into ways to break the infrastructure monopolies altogether, and introduce real competition. Services won't improve until customers have real choice.


22 JAN 2016

Oxfam's crusade against capitalism will keep Africa poor

Oxfam is on another crusade against inequality. It claims the richest 1% will soon own more than the other 99%, and points the predictable finger at capitalism. But Oxfam's Occupy agenda is dishonest: the free market is finally ending Africa's poverty. The socialist politics of aid agencies are selling out the world's poorest people.

Fifty years ago, Asia, not Africa, was the poorest place on Earth. Famine was endemic, and millions starved. Yet today, famine in Asia is a thing of the past. What changed?

The big shift was down to capitalism. India, China, and countries across the Far East opened themselves up to private investment and foreign markets. Catastrophic Communist economic planning was reined in. As a result, living standards rapidly rose.

Meanwhile, what has happened to Africa? Many countries that were once rich have gone backwards. Rhodesia was once the breadbasket of Africa; Zimbabwe, under Mugabe, has become one of the continent's poorest countries. Dictators, warlords, and militias have perpetrated genocides and entrenched economic collapse. That is, until recently.

In the last few years, things have started to change. Corruption is being constrained, and democracy starting to develop. Investment – instead of aid - is flowing in. Wealth and health are on the up. "Capitalism," as Fraser Nelson writes, "is lifting people out of poverty at the fastest rate in human history." 

But what's Oxfam's big solution? Clamping down on tax havens. Now let's be honest: making sure that HMRC gets more money from the jet-setting rich won't make life any better for the African poor. Oxfam is just selling the socialist dogma that - as a great lady once said - would rather the poor were poorer provided the rich were not so rich.

Markets – not redistribution - are the solution to Africa's problem. We need to remove the constraints on African economies – like EU tariffs – that keep the continent poor. We have to enable Africans to produce and sell, not abandon Africa to more decades of dependency. That's why UKIP believes in trade, not aid.

Oxfam needs to be honest: capitalism is making lives better; it's time to stop fighting it.


21 JAN 2016

Safer in the EU? There is no national security without national border control

Seen the Project Fear propaganda about Britain being safer in the EU? Here's something they won't tell you: Eurocrat-in-chief Jean-Claude Juncker is about to rip up the rules on the resettlement of refugees. No longer will asylum seekers be obliged to seek refuge in the first country they come to. Instead, Britain will be forced to accept EU asylum seeker quotas. Once again, the EU is taking control of our borders.

The "Dublin rules," which mean asylum seekers have to seek refuge in the EU country they entered first, made some sense. It is one thing for people fleeing state failure in Syria to seek asylum in Greece. It is another for people who have reached Calais to look to stay Britain instead of France. The rules were intended to distinguish between migrants by necessity and migrants by choice.

The reason Juncker wants to change the rules is because the numbers arriving are too high. Those countries that are first in line rightly feel they can't possibly handle the volume of people entering. But how will redistribution from Brussels solve the underlying problem?

Opening Europe's doors to mass immigration will only make the migrant crisis worse. Almost a million people have already risked their lives to cross the Mediterranean. Many drowned in the attempt. Creating EU asylum seekers quotas will only encourage more people to make the same perilous journey.

The EU's cack-handed approach to the migrant crisis is doomed to fail. It will make life worse for the countries of Europe, and worse for people fleeing state failure.

But here's the question for Britain: as long as we stay in the EU, our basic sovereign right to determine who lives in this country will be overridden by the preposterous political priorities of the Euro elites. Who honestly believes that makes us safer?


20 JAN 2016

The Bank of England's plan has failed

The economy is meant to be sorted by now, isn't it? The Chancellor told us he'd fix the roof while the sun was shining. The Bank of England said it would lead Britain back to prudence and prosperity. But now another downturn is approaching, it's clear our overlords have just repeated the mistakes of the past.

Yesterday, the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, announced he wouldn't be raising interest rates from record lows until at least next year. "The world is weaker and UK growth has slowed," he explained. "Now is not yet the time to raise interest rates."

But when is the time? The Bank originally cut interest rates to 0.5% in 2009 as a temporary measure to deal with the financial crisis. They were meant to be raised again in 2010. Seven years later, the rates still haven't changed. Clearly the Bank's plan has failed.

The real reason Mark Carney won't touch interest rates is that our banks couldn't survive a rise. They are totally dependent on artificially cheap capital. Quantitative easing and ultra-loose monetary policy hasn't saved us from economic collapse. On the contrary: it has just redistributed more wealth from taxpayers to a crony cartel of Big Banks, and propped up a failed financial system.

The financial crisis was caused by seven years of massive public subsidies to the financial sector by central banks and central Government. And what have our wise leaders done to make sure it doesn't happen again? Another seven years of public subsidies to the financial sector. Well guess what: if you make the same bad decisions, you can expect the same results.

The UKIP Parliamentary Resource Unit recently published a paper on the need for real banking reform. Our paper makes the case that to avert economic disaster, the Government needs to stop rewarding bankers for failure. This time, let's not repeat our mistakes.


19 JAN 2016

Want immigration equality? Vote Leave

This year many UK-resident non-EU citizens who earn below £35,000 face deportation. Lots of people are saying this is unfair. They're right: as EU members, Britain has a discriminatory immigration policy that penalises immigrants based on their nationality. There is only one route to fair immigration system: vote Leave.

The only reason the Home Secretary is clamping down on non-EU immigrants is because there is nothing she can do about immigrants from the EU. Deporting non-EU immigrants based on how much they earn is a futile attempt to reduce record high immigration figures. But as long as Britain remains in the EU, over 400 million EU citizens will automatically be free to live in Britain.

Our immigration system is failing us not just because the numbers coming in are uncontrolled but because it is essentially xenophobic. It allows all EU entrants in without question, but turns back doctors from Delhi and computer scientists from California. It discriminates between immigrants not based on what they can bring to Britain, but where they were born.

UKIP is the only party that supports an Australian points-style immigration system. We want to take control of our borders, and admit people based on their talents and the nation's needs – no matter where they come from. But it is impossible to implement that system while we locked into the workforce protectionism of the EU.

A fair immigration policy wouldn't reject people because of their nationality. There is only one way to make immigration equality possible: vote Leave.


18 JAN 2016

No, machines don't create mass unemployment

The Spectator has resurrected the old myth about technological unemployment. Millions of manual jobs will soon be done by robots, it warns; this is a 'potential catastrophe'! Except it's not true. Mechanisation didn't cause mass unemployment in the industrial revolution, and it won't today.

In 19th-century Britain, many artisanal industries became mechanised – but that didn't mean people had no work. On the contrary, mechanisation generated so many jobs that employment kept up with an unprecedented explosion in population as Britain broke the Malthusian trap. It made basic goods like clothes and fuel much cheaper to produce and transport, and therefore much cheaper to buy. It allowed millions of people to escape poverty and earn a stable wage.

Yes, there were losers as well as winners. Weavers, for example, didn't gain from the mechanisation of the textile industry. In fact, textile workers formed a movement – the Luddites – to protest against the rise of the machines, by smashing them up. But the employment losses suffered by a small group were outstripped by the enormous employment gains for a much larger one – and the wider economic gains for consumers.

The key point is this: mechanisation creates jobs because it creates demand. By cutting the cost of production, mechanisation means people have more money to spend. It stimulates consumption and demand. More demand calls for more supply – which means more people end up being employed in the production process.

Arguing that robots can replace all human jobs completely misses the point. It is Bastiat's 'broken window' fallacy: yes, industry may radically change so that people won't be doing some jobs in 50 years' time that they do today; but what about the wider effects we're not looking at?

If we actually get to a point where people don't need to work for a living, that won't create destitution; it will open up brand new economic activity. It will create enormous demand. And that will allow people to exchange their skill and labour in entirely new ways.

The Industrial Revolution made Britain the greatest country in the world. We shouldn't be afraid of harnessing that spirit today. Quite the opposite: market-led innovation will make Britain a world-leader again!


15 JAN 2016

Why are European judges writing our laws?

The European Court of Human Rights has decreed that employers now have the right to read their employees' private messages. This is a major change to UK law: why is it being made by unelected, unaccountable foreign judges?

Whether or not employers should be able to see employees' personal messages that are sent during work hours is an arguable point. Of course employers expect employees not to use work time for private purposes, or use a private messenger account for work – just ask Hillary Clinton. But employees can also justifiably claim that allowing their boss free access to their personal messages is a direct violation of their private property. There is a case both ways.

What can't be justified is that this is being decided by a handful of unelected officials in Strasbourg. Step back and think about this for a second: the decisions of a foreign court now take precedence over those of both our Parliament and our judges. We have simply surrendered our sovereignty. And for what?

The European Court of Human Rights was set up in the wake of the Second World War. It was meant to protect the people of Europe from appalling persecution by tyrannical governments. But instead it has been co-opted to do the opposite. By overriding national democracies and judiciaries, it has eroded the rights and liberties of the peoples of Europe.

We don't need an international court to determine the relationship between employers and employees. In fact, we don't need a uniform relationship at all. The solution is freedom of contract: individual employers and employees should have the right to work out their own terms and conditions through bargaining. Restricting that freedom doesn't preserve our rights, it violates them.

If we meekly give up our democracy, sovereignty, and liberty to an unaccountable administrative elite we have learnt nothing from the last century. The ECHR is no different from the EU: it's time we leave both, and take back our rights.


14 JAN 2016

Don't despair about deflation: falling prices are good!

Here's an amazing fact: in 1955, 1MB of computer memory cost over $400 million. Today, it costs less than 1 cent. Some of the world's poorest people today have better computers in their pockets than the world's richest people could afford 60 years ago. Falling prices have made billions of people better off.

High-tech deflation has transformed our lives. Think about communication: 30 years ago, calling a friend abroad cost a fortune in phone bills. Now you can do it for free with Skype or WhatsApp. For sending messages, snail mail was the only option. Now, with e-mail, it takes no time and costs consumers nothing.

Or think about information: Google and Wikipedia have given us more information at our fingertips today than you can find in the world's best libraries. The Internet has made information so cheap, even hard copy newspapers have become giveaways to compete.

The 'freeconomy' shows that the doom-and-gloom claims about falling productivity may be a myth. As a recent piece in Prospect argues, conventional productivity statistics miss the fact that the economic productivity of communication has soared by enormous proportions.

The papers today are full of panic about falling prices: oil, houses, food. But hang on: isn't that a good thing? If you pay less for petrol, heating, and groceries, aren't you better off? If you wouldn't have to borrow so much to buy a house, wouldn't you feel more secure?

Commentators are saying another recession is around the corner – and they're probably right. But the problem isn't that prices are too low, it's that they're too high. House prices and the stock market have risen much faster than wages. They've been driven up artificially by central banks. Asset price inflation has made elites rich as the expense of everyone else.

Falling prices are what we should be aiming for. If we can get more for less, that isn't something to panic about; it's economic progress!


13 JAN 2016

Staying in the EU is the risky option

A lot of people are asking what Britain would look like outside the EU. Businesses, employers, and investors are increasingly making the case that Britain will thrive outside the constraints of EU red tape. But here's the question that the Remain side doesn't want you to ask: what would Britain look like if we end up staying? The truth is we don't really know – but the signs aren't good.

The EU never stops integrating. It has changed radically just in the last few years. The Lisbon Treaty, which came into force in 2009, gave the EU its own constitution, President, and Foreign Minister. The sovereign debt crisis enabled central EU institutions to dictate national policy in Italy, Ireland, and Greece – and even impose an unelected Prime Minister on the Italian people. Slowly but surely the EU is taking power away from member states and centralising it in Brussels.

So what does the future of Europe look like? If the last few years are any guide, it means more economic stagnation, more sovereign debt crises, and more open-door immigration both within and outside the EU. It means less democracy and accountability.

What will that mean for Britain? The Prime Minister claims to want Britain to opt out of the words 'ever-closer union'. But changing the semantics is one thing; changing the reality is another. When the EU introduces the next round of major integration, will Britain be dragged along with it? What protections will we have? From the PM's 'renegotiation', it doesn't look like we'll have any. But the truth is no one knows.

What we do know is that EU restrictions on Britain's trade with the rest of the world mean that Britain's economy is dangerously tied to Europe's. We'll be much more exposed to the EU's next economic crisis if we stay in the EU than if we leave.

Europe's future is out of our control. But Britain's future isn't. Brexit would give the British people – instead of the Brussels elite – the power to determine this country's destiny.

The risky option is to trust the bureaucrats in Brussels. The safe choice is to vote leave and take back control.


12 JAN 2016

China's stock market collapse highlights the hubris of central planning

China's stock market bubble has finally burst. The Communist leadership's attempt to control the economy has been shown up for what it is: the cause of chronic malinvestment. Once again, the hubris of central planners has made entire populations poorer.

The Chinese people are no strangers to suffering brought on by the economic insanity of their leaders. Chairman Mao – the worst mass murderer in human history – tyrannised the population through authoritarian central planning. His 'Great Leap Forward' ended up killing 45 million people in four years.

China's progress from a country in economic catastrophe to a global superpower in a few short decades is down to one thing: market forces. By liberalising the economy, making room for private enterprise and private investment, the Chinese government unleashed astonishing productivity growth and wealth creation.

But let's keep a sense of perspective: China is not a free country. People are still denied basic liberties and rights. The Government is still authoritarian and all-powerful – unchecked by either the people or the rule of law. The State still manipulates the economy. The idea that modern China has escaped its Communist past is a myth.

The dangerous results of the latest round of Chinese central planning are now coming to light. Huge new ghost cities – built by regional governments trying to keep up with national growth targets – that no one can afford to live in. A vast asset bubble, and an ever bigger mountain of credit. Enormous fiscal and monetary intervention by Chinese authorities failing to stop the rot. China is facing a serious economic correction ahead – and there is nothing the State can do to stop it.

Western commentators are facing a correction too. During China's boom, pundits were quick to jump on the bandwagon, telling us that big statist projects and contempt for liberal democracy were the way forward after all. They ignored the fundamental reason the West has been economically supreme for so long: free enterprise, and limits on the power of the State.

China's crash should be a wake-up call for the West: the only route to prosperity is to set the economy free.


11 JAN 2016

Are Britain's banks really fixed? Tell us what you think!

The Bank of England says Britain's banks have been fixed. But have they really? Our research suggests the banks are no safer today than they were before the financial crisis, and shows they need real reform.

Watch our video, read our paper, then tell us if you agree in our poll.


08 JAN 2016

I asked the Energy Minister why the State is subsiding wind; all I got in response was hot air

When will the State stop subsiding wasteful wind farms with taxpayers' money? That's what I asked the Energy Minister yesterday. It's a reasonable question: British workers give up a huge portion of their wages in tax; the State shouldn't be squandering it. Shame the Government doesn't seem to agree.

If you wanted to make an industry inefficient, you could not devise a better system than State subsidies. British Government subsidies to the banks gave as Too Big to Fail and the 2008 financial crisis. EU agricultural subsidies to farmers produced wine lakes and butter mountains – excess supply no one could consume. US Government subsidies to General Motors and Chrysler resulted in failing companies manufacturing cars people don't want to buy.

Subsidies break the connection between producers and consumers. Normally, a company needs to satisfy the interests of consumers if it wants to make money. A company that makes products people don't want won't sell, and won't succeed against better competitors. That's why under normal circumstances producers have an in-built incentive to keep improving their product.

But a company that receives subsidies from the State doesn't have to satisfy consumers. Instead of making its revenue from selling good products, it can simply collect a cheque from the State. Subsidies allow companies to get away with making bad products knowing the taxpayer will pick up the tab.

State subsidies aren't just bad for the taxpayer. They are bad for the industry they are supposed to support. They take away the incentive to innovate, improve, and deliver good value for money.

Subsidies for renewable energy don't only hurt for British taxpayers and households. They damage renewable technology too. If we want renewables ever to become efficient and useful, we need energy producers to be incentivised to create more efficient technology. Lavishing taxpayers' money on wasteful wind farms serves nobody's interests. It's time to end the renewable racket.


07 JAN 2016

Stop blaming the patients for healthcare shortages

Clacton has a chronic GP shortage. For many of my constituents, it is becoming impossible to access primary care. Analysts too often blame "demographics" for strains on healthcare. But the patients aren't the problem. Something is very wrong with our healthcare system.

Doctors in Clacton are at a premium. Three out of four of GP surgeries won't accept new patients. Even if you are lucky enough to be on the books, it is exceptionally difficult to get an appointment.

So what's the problem? The pundits would probably tell you the problem is too many patients. Clacton, they would say, has an ageing population. Doctors, they would claim, can't cope with the increasing demand on the system.

But think about this for a second: in what other area of our lives is too many clients a problem?

Does Tesco complain that it has too many customers? Does O2 worry that too many people want to buy iPhones? Does Saga claim there are now too many old people who want to buy insurance or go on cruises?

No other provider worries about too many people wanting to use it. Quite the reverse – the aim is more punters. So why is this "blame the patient" argument acceptable when we talk about healthcare?

The truth is that something is going very wrong with the system. My constituents have paid into the system all their lives. The fact that many cannot access healthcare today is a breakdown in how the system is supposed to work.

The problem is that GP contracts are centralised. A doctor with a very high workload in Clacton receives little more than a doctor with a relatively low workload somewhere else. This isn't fair on doctors. It isn't fair on patients either. The system has created perverse incentives: doctors should be incentivised to come to areas where demand is highest, like Clacton. Instead they are incentivised to leave.

The Conservative Government points the finger at Labour. They will say John Reid made things worse when he overhauled GP contracts in 2004. But what have they done, after almost 6 years, to fix the problem? Ministers fiddle with their central production targets and spreadsheets, isolated and insulated from what is happening on the ground.

The political class needs to recognise reality. We urgently need to look at how other countries deliver primary care, and see if there may be lessons for our system. Otherwise Clacton's GP shortages will soon affect the entire country.


06 JAN 2016

Structure - not culture - is the problem with our banks

Britain's banks are in bad shape. They are too indebted, too protected from the disastrous consequences of their own decisions, and – thanks to decades of Government subsidy – far too big. They need serious, far-reaching reform. What they don't need is a pointless official review into their "culture."

Several Labour MPs on the Treasury Select Committee are apparently furious that the Financial Conduct Authority has scrapped an inquiry into "Britain's banking culture." But what do they think it would have achieved?

Watching bank executives work – as if they exist in a vacuum – will tell us nothing. To understand how banks act, we need to think about their incentives. That doesn't require an inquiry; they are there for everyone to see.

Broken banks are the result of perverse incentives dictated by the central bank and the Government. The Bank of England has kept interest rates – the price of capital – unprecedentedly low, so banks are incentivised to borrow and lend. The Government insures deposits, so banks are incentivised to run down their reserves. Taxpayers are forced to bail out banks when they fail, so banks are incentivised to take as many risks as possible.

If banks have a culture of excessive risk-taking, it is because monetary policy, public subsidy, and Government regulation has encouraged it. Recognising the symptom is not enough; we have to tackle the cause.

Last month, the UKIP Parliamentary Resource Unit published a report explaining the danger of banking collapse, and the reforms necessary to avoid it. I encourage anyone looking for a serious discussion of financial reform to read it.

We urgently need to end a financial structure that systemically transfers wealth from taxpayers to the Big Banks. If Labour MPs were really different from corporatist Conservatives, that's what they would be championing. Of course, we know they're not: in 2008, Gordon Brown instigated the bank bailout that amounted to one of the biggest transfers of wealth from the poor to the rich in human history.

Only UKIP is prepared to take on the Big Bank cartel.


05 JAN 2016

Vote for innovation: vote Leave

Innovation is what made Britain a global superpower. Our agricultural and industrial revolutions ultimately transformed the economy of the entire world. But today we don't have the freedom to innovate, because of reams of red tape regulation from the EU. Brussels is holding British business back.

The latest victim of the EU's dead hand is the e-cigarette.

Some of the e-cigarette technology (the cartomiser) was invented in Britain. Today, there is a huge market for e-cigarettes in the UK. They have been so successful in helping quitting smokers give up tobacco, even the NHS has recognised their potential.

But now the EU is stepping in to crush the e-cigarette. In May, they will become subject to the EU's Tobacco Products Directive. Think about how absurd this is for a second: the whole point of e-cigarettes is that they are not a tobacco product.

The EU has form when it comes to blocking efforts to reduce early deaths from smoking. Brussels bureaucracy has already had devastating consequences for medical research in Britain. Before the EU Clinical Trials Directive came in, about 6% of all clinical trials happened in this country. Now, it's a shade over 1%, with innovation leaving the EU altogether.

The Tobacco Products Directive could be just as catastrophic for the e-cigarette industry. Manufacturers will now have to submit detailed annual reports on their sales and users. Big Business might be able to cope with this bureaucracy. But small businesses – like most in the industry – will be suffocated.

The sad thing is that none of this comes a surprise. The EU is corporatist to a fault: it always acts against the interests of small business. It always produces regulation that hurts SMEs the most. It always works to defend Big Business from disruptive innovation by new start-ups.

Small businesses know this too. That's why so many are already set to vote for Brexit.

Britain needs to recapture the entrepreneurial spirit of the industrial revolution to succeed in the 21st century. We should be pioneers in the digital revolution – and lead the world in innovation again. You can make it happen: vote Leave.


04 JAN 2016

Happy New Year! Bring on the moment that will define Britain's future

Happy New Year! 2016 could be the biggest year in British politics in four decades. The referendum on Britain's EU membership may be only six months away. We have a once in a lifetime chance to take back control of our nation, and define our own future. Let's make sure we take it.

Britain's future is bright. We have the creativity, the innovation, the vibrant democracy, the global prominence, the confident national identity to continue to be a great, successful country in the 21st century. There is just one thing holding us back: the EU.

The EU is a product of 20th-century anxieties. It is rooted in the fear of European war, and of European peoples. It is a reactionary force, dedicated to obstructing all change except further European integration.

The Remain campaign has rightly been labelled Project Fear. It's not just that the Remainers don't believe Britain can survive outside the EU. It's that they don't believe Europe can survive without the EU. They buy into the pessimism and fear that defines the whole European project.

Change is inevitable. The world of 2016 is not the same as the world post-World War II. Germany and France are not about to drag Europe into total war again. In fact, the main cause of tension in Europe today is the EU itself.

We cannot let our destiny be determined by the paranoia of the European Establishment elite. We have to be free to adapt to a new world. We need to be optimists about the future, and realists about the EU.

Let's make 2016 the year we place a vote of confidence in Britain.


29 DEC 2015

2015, the year of political insurgency? Wait 'til you see 2016 .....

Just before Christmas, Spanish voters became the latest to rebel against their political Establishment. The global rise of political insurgents tells us one thing: the old political consensus isn't working.

Voters around the world are all disaffected with their governments at the same time. This isn't a coincidence. People aren't just playing copycat. Nor is this only about economics. There is a deeper issue at the heart of our politics.

People are realising that whichever way they vote, nothing seems to change. That's why they are now voting for genuine, radical alternatives instead. The political Establishment has failed them.

Some are aghast about the rise of insurgents. They see extremists winning public support, and they fear the will of the people. But it is misguided to fear voters. We should be afraid of the failure of democracy: if the people support change but government stays the same anyway, we no longer live in a genuinely democratic society.

But it is also misguided to believe that a change of rhetoric and personnel will automatically bring change in government. Syriza in Greece are a case in point: they were originally elected on a platform of opposing EU austerity measures, and have ended up implementing even harsher EU austerity measures than those they set out to oppose. And when the insurgents fail, what then?

The problem is that too much government is totally disconnected from the people. In the UK, we are governed from Brussels by EU officials we never elected and cannot get rid of. But we are also governed by unelected officials in Whitehall. Vast institutions with their own political agendas that elected representatives can no longer hold to account.

The root of stasis and groupthink in political Establishments worldwide is Big Government. As long as we allow power to be centralised in opaque officialdom, there will never be change. Insurgents who ignore the role of Big Government will inevitably fail to deliver. Effective insurgency must shrink the State to give back power to the people.


27 DEC 2015

The gentleman in Whitehall is inept

Do you trust the "experts" in the Treasury to manage the economy? Would you trust them if you knew the economic data they use was less than 80% accurate at best?

It turns out that the UK is one of the least reliable advanced countries in compiling accurate economic data. This dodgy data is what the Chancellor and the Bank of England base their grand plans on. Anyone spot the flaw here?

The inaccuracy of our economic data might explain a lot. It may tell us why Government borrowing always overshoots projections. It might give us a clue why so many people in Britain feel no better off even though the economy is supposedly growing.

How do you measure the product of an entire economy accurately though? The truth is it's impossible. A major economy comprises trillions of individual transactions – more than anyone can possibly understand, let alone keep track of. Every metric we use to measure growth is only a broad estimate, and GDP is a pretty suspect estimate at that.

If measuring the economy is beyond us, how can we possible expect to manage it? The idea that any "expert" can run the economy and allocate resources better than the market is what Hayek called the fatal conceit. Yet this delusion is part of the DNA of our political Establishment.

Believing in the free market is about recognising that the gentleman in Whitehall doesn't know best. It is about trusting millions of individuals to manage their own affairs rather than putting our faith in the tiny elite that keeps getting its sums wrong with disastrous results. Hubristic central planning is what holds our economy back. The route to prosperity is to set the economy – and the people – free.


26 DEC 2015

EU Rich List - why every day is Christmas day for the Euro elite

How much do you think the top EU officials get paid by the taxpayer?  Now you can find out.

This week the UKIP Parliamentary Resource Unit has published the first ever EU Rich List – setting out the salaries, pensions, benefits, and tax advantages of the 200 best-paid Eurocrats. It makes astonishing reading.

Our research reveals:

• The top 200 EU officials cost taxpayers over £50m last year

All of the officials in the EU Rich List earned more than the Prime Minister.

• The top 200 EU officials each brought home nearly ten times as much as the average British worker.

On average, officials in the EU Rich List each pay £50,000 less tax than they would in the UK.

• Pensions of officials in the EU Rich List are projected to cost European taxpayers £4.5m every year

Since the financial crisis, central EU institutions have imposed severe austerity packages on several member nations. Yet while Brussels has forced cuts on the peoples of Europe, it has allowed its own budgets to balloon. Our report shows Eurocrats' salaries have increased in real terms in spite of the financial crisis. EU officials have insulated themselves from the pain they have inflicted on the people.

Want to see the full scale of Euro excess? Read the EU Rich List here.

Cheer up!  This time next year, we could have voted to leave......


23 DEC 2015

To arm, or not to arm?

Yesterday the Evening Standard published a poll suggesting the majority of people in Britain believe the police should be routinely armed. I'm not so sure.

I can see arguments either way. Perhaps this is something best decided locally? What might be suitable for parts of London might be very out of place in rural Essex. Some parts of our country are at more serious risk of terror attacks than others. Some have more violent crime than others. What is right for police in one part of the country may not be right for police in another.

The good news is we now have a way to decide police priorities and tactics locally through elected Police and Crime Commissioners, plus in London, the Mayor.

Perhaps we ought to be asking candidates to be PCCs - and London mayoral candidates - whether or not they would arm the police? Then the voting public could have their say in a real ballot instead of an opinion poll.

I suspect most would say a firm "no" to routine arming where they live - but support more armed response police where needed.

Whether or not the police carry guns is an issue that needs to be seriously debated. The Paris attacks last month were a reminder that armed terrorists on our streets are a genuine threat. It is no surprise that public support for arming the police has since gone up. But after the Jean Charles de Menezes shooting ten years ago, many criticised the idea. If there is going to be a fundamental change in policing, it is important it has explicit, democratic backing from the people.

The next PCC elections take place in the coming year. So does the election for the Mayor of London.

Localising control over policing does not bring out the mob-mindset. It means a sensible debate about how best to deal with the policing challenges we all face.


22 DEC 2015

We can't solve our housing crisis without taking back control of our borders

The Labour MP Frank Field has published a report confirming what people outside the Westminster bubble already know: open-door immigration is making Britain's housing crisis worse. Frank Field has always been a voice of reason in Parliament, and an original thinker who is not afraid of defying the Establishment consensus. The question is why the political Establishment is so blind to the obvious.

You don't need to be an economist to see that a massive rise in demand without a corresponding rise in supply will push prices up, or even create shortages. Yet that is what the Government is allowing to happen in the housing market, year after year, by letting unrestricted immigration continue unabated. (Of course, George Osborne doesn't understand basic market forces in housing, but that's another story.)

This Government isn't even trying to control immigration. Immigration control is certainly nowhere near the empty agenda of David Cameron's sham EU "renegotiation." The truth is we cannot control immigration until we become sovereign again.

Sovereignty is the core issue. In the 1950s and 1960s, there was a genuine debate in this country about immigration. Some were in favour, others were against. But the point is people's opinions counted for something. And when Parliament voted, its decisions were binding and meaningful.

Today, neither the people, nor Parliament, nor even the Prime Minister have a say over border control. We have ceded the right to determine who comes into this country to bureaucrats in Brussels. Foreign officials are even opening our borders to immigrants from outside the EU without our democratic consent. Whichever side of the immigration debate you come down on, how can anyone seriously defend that?

I believe that controlling our borders is critical to our national security. I also believe that controlling immigration is indispensable for a cohesive society, a functional housing market, and a remotely sustainable welfare state. I understand that other people in Britain have different views. I can't understand why anyone in Britain would want their views to be irrelevant. That, fundamentally, is why I believe we need to vote leave and take back control.


21 DEC 2015

Cheer up! Christmas is nearly here, Christmas lunch is getting cheaper - and the days longer

Here's a Christmas cheer up fact: this year's Christmas lunch is set to be the cheapest since 2011. In fact, In fact, global food prices have hit a seven-year low. Who do we have to thank? Technology and the free market.

Food prices have come down from a particularly high peak. Back in 2012, rocketing food price inflation every year was a serious concern. So what has changed?

One major driver of the price of food is the price of fuel. In 2012, the average price of a barrel of oil was $109. Today it is under $40. Over the last few years, fracking in America has unleashed a wave of new supply. That has not only cut the cost of fuel, but also cut production costs in agriculture and industry.

This is helping break the oil cartel. Saudi Arabia and others are starting to supply what the market wants, not what it suits oil producers to produce.

Britain isn't feeling the full benefits of cheap oil though. The cost of petrol at the pump hasn't dropped anywhere near as much as the wholesale price. Neither have energy bills. Why? Because Government regulations and taxes on fossil fuels keep costs up.

The Government's campaign against fossil fuels doesn't just affect the price of energy. It raises the cost of basic necessities across the board. A tax on fuel is a tax on food too.

Many people across Britain still have to scrimp and save to provide their Christmas lunch. Farmers and factories struggle to break even every year. By keeping energy prices artificially high, the Government puts unnecessary pressure families and businesses. Cutting regressive green taxes would be a nice Christmas bonus for all of us.

P.S. It's also December 21st - the shortest day of the year. The days can only now get longer...

 


18 DEC 2015

Are the banks really fixed?

Could there be another financial crisis around the corner? The Bank of England claims the big banks have been fixed. Our new banking study shows they haven't.

The big banks are supposed to have built up their reserves since 2008. They are meant to be taking fewer risks. They are assumed to be much safer now. That's what the Bank of England says anyway.

But hold on a minute: the Bank of England didn't see the last financial crisis coming. It thought the banks were fine in 2007. Why should we trust it today?

The UKIP Parliamentary Resource Unit has done its own study of the UK and European banks. We found that the Bank of England is masking serious problems. Its stress test of the banking system relies on dodgy risk assessments and overoptimistic economic projections.

So we did an alternative stress test – looking at what would happen if the banks faced the same shocks as they did in 2008. Our test shows that the big banks are actually no safer now than they were then.

The big banks are still broken. They have only survived because of massive subsidies from central banks. This week the Federal Reserve raised interest rates from record lows for the first time in almost a decade. But credit is still far too cheap – and the big banks can no longer survive without it.

Banker bashing is very fashionable. Popular movements rail against the greed of financial fat cats. But the problem goes much deeper than the bankers: the problem is the system.

Central banks, like the Bank of England, are actually the core issue. Providing unlimited credit to a few banks is what has made them too big to fail. Bailing them out at the taxpayer's expense is what has encouraged them to take more risks.

The banking system needs radical reform. For a start, the retail banks urgently need to beef up their reserves. Otherwise another serious crisis is inevitable.

Read our paper to find out more.


17 DEC 2015

If the PM can't answer questions on his EU "renegotiation," how can we trust him?

3.8 million UKIP votes. One Member of Parliament. Zero chance of having a question answered by the Prime Minister. Welcome to the Westminster cartel.

People across Britain are genuinely anxious about the Prime Minister's "renegotiation" of our EU membership. I recently met a trade unionist who represents public sector workers in Essex. He is open-minded about the EU, but is worried about what the renegotiation would mean for employment and social law.

Yesterday I put that question to the PM. I pointed out that two years ago he said he wanted to bring powers over employment and social affairs back from Brussels to Britain. Now it looks like he has given up on any repatriation. So I asked him straight: in his negotiations with the EU, would he be demanding those powers back or not?

But instead of answering, all the PM could come up with was abuse. Instead of enlightening millions of concerned citizens, he decided to play to a tiny clique of careerist MPs.

I had to wait four months for the chance to be called at PMQs, and give Clactonians and 3.8 million UKIP voters a voice in Parliament. The PM's refusal to answer shows the political cartel at work. He knows he won't deliver any reform, so he has resorted to covering up for his cronies in Brussels. He has become the EU's PR-man in London.

Do you trust David Cameron to get the best deal for Britain? Watch his response, and decide for yourself. Want to wipe the smug smirk off his face? Vote leave.



16 DEC 2015

Britain is powerless to block the EU's dodgy deal with Turkey

Did you know the EU's new deal with Turkey gives 75 million Turkish citizens unrestricted access to Europe? Did you know it allows 400,000 Syrian migrants to settle in EU countries? Did you know Britain is powerless to do anything about it?

The EU spins its deal as the solution to the migrant crisis. It is no such thing. Europe's porous borders caused the crisis. Opening them even wider will only make a bad situation worse.

We had no say over this agreement. It was negotiated and signed with no British input. But it will have a huge impact on Britain.

The deal is supposed to apply only to Schengen countries, not the UK. But once the 400,000 migrants have got EU residency papers, what is to stop them coming here? Answer: nothing. In fact, migrants placed in countries where unemployment is rampant – like Portugal or Italy – will be looking for the first opportunity to leave.

This is a seminal moment: we will now have open-door immigration not just from inside the EU, but from outside it too.

On Monday night, this dodgy deal was discussed by a virtually empty Commons chamber. Most of the political Establishment was happy to let this key issue of national security pass unnoticed.

But the real tragedy is that Parliament was powerless to do anything about it. Even if MPs had been given the opportunity to vote the deal down, it would have made no difference. The debate was a sham. Parliament long ago signed away the right to control Britain's borders.

The British people had no say over this deal. Their elected legislators had no say. Their Government had no say. Is this really how we want to be governed? How can it not be better for Britain to vote leave and take back control?


15 DEC 2015

Man wasn't born free, but he may be liberated by blockchains

Imagine if a business leased a fleet of driverless cars, and ran them as a taxi firm available through uber. You could, in theory, automate every aspect of the firm. When to lease or more vehicles or clean them could be determined by demand. Every aspect of the business, including how and when to advertise, could be run by a computer programme.

Except you don't have to imagine it: soon it will be real.

Technology is transforming the way we do business. Uber's app already enables people to order vehicles at the touch of a button. Google's driverless cars are around the corner. Now blockchain technology – set to take off in 2016 - is revolutionising how companies work.

Blockchain – the digital code technology behind Bitcoin – is an automatic, public database of transactions. It allows direct, peer-to-peer buying and selling, with no central, corporate broker keeping a record. It enables a company to be entirely run by software.

This technology has enormous implications. It means people can trade without any interference from the State. Blockchain facilitates smart contracts: the rules of the trade are written into the code – meaning trade is self-regulating. No legal system is required to enforce the contracts.

Blockchain prevents other State intervention too. Bitcoin has already broken the State's monopoly over currency. It allows people to avoid the tyranny of the Osborne pound and his mendacious monetary manipulation.

Technology allows us to see what a genuinely free market would actually look like. No red tape. No price controls on capital by central banks. No debasement of the coinage by the Big Banking/Big Government crony cartel. No arbitrary extortion on private enterprise, conjured up every six months in burdensome budgets by the Chancellor.

For hundreds of years, parasitic elites have lived off other people's labour and ingenuity. High-tech innovation may finally set humanity free.


14 DEC 2015

Nicky Morgan is right to highlight the forced adoption scandal. But does her own department agree?

There has been a huge rise in new-born babies being taken from their parents by the State. Nicky Morgan, the Education Secretary, has rightly expressed alarm. But does her own department feel the same?

Just three weeks ago, the Minister for Children and Families told Parliament the adoption system was working just fine. He said the family courts have a "strict and stiff test" for adopting without consent. He also dismissed the need for greater scrutiny, glibly parroting that going beyond the current system "requires careful consideration."

Ministers are encased in a Whitehall bubble that insulates them from reality. They are surrounded by officials who present the adoption system as it ought to be, rather than as it is. That's why it takes the seizure of new-born babies for Nicky Morgan to wake up to what's going wrong.

UKIP has been part of a long campaign to reform the adoption system.

I triggered the Parliamentary debate on forced adoptions three weeks ago. I made the case that it is too easy for the State to break up families, and that there are too many cases of injustice. I argued that secrecy in the family courts is the problem, and that we need more openness and public scrutiny of the adoption system to ensure that the right decisions are being made.

We also published a paper on the change the system needs: Opening Up the Family Courts.

This issue is too important to be left to ministerial mediocrities. It shouldn't take a scandal for ministers to notice that the system they're supposed to be running is causing terrible harm. We need ministers who can get a grip on policy. Responsible Government should be acting in the interests of children and the public, not those of the family court cartel.

Watch our video, and join our campaign:


13 DEC 2015

Dan Hannan, Jim Mellon and me - united for Leave!

The EU Referendum campaign is stepping up.

This coming Saturday, 19th December, I'll be joining speakers from across the political spectrum in Eastbourne to make the case that we need to vote leave and take back control. Come and make your voice heard too.

I'm delighted to be speaking alongside some great believers in Britain's future. Dan Hannan MEP has spent his entire adult life spearheading the campaign against a federal Europe.

It's great that Jim Mellon, one of Britain's most successful businessmen, who has been involved in Leave.EU, will be joining us. We're all coming together because this referendum is so important.

Our political Establishment is determined to sell us out to Brussels. The PM's sham row with Donald Tusk last week embodies everything that's wrong with the EU. The European project is built on undemocratic attempts to subvert the will of the peoples of Europe.

That's why the referendum is so important. For the first time ever, the British people are getting a say on our membership of the EU. We have one opportunity to win back control of our country from the Euro elites. Join the Vote Leavecampaign to make sure we take it!

If you are near Eastbourne, why not come along?  


11 DEC 2015

Osborne's mortgage subsidy is making houses unaffordable

George Osborne's Help to Buy mortgage subsidy makes it easier for first-time buyers to borrow. "That's great," you might say. "Now more people can get on the housing ladder." But what effect does this policy have on house prices? And what does it mean for everyone who can't claim the subsidy?

New data shows London's house prices are higher than ever . Prices are rising much faster than wages, making homes less and less affordable. Why? Because the Chancellor has made it easier for a chosen few to get a mortgage.

Osborne's mortgage subsidy increases the reservoir of buyers. Because more people can borrow money, more people are in the market for a house. But the mortgage subsidy doesn't increase the housing stock by one brick. More people are bidding for the same number of houses. That means house prices go up.

If you're a first-time buyer, you might be okay. The mortgage subsidy means you can buy a house – even if you have to borrow a fortune. But what about everyone else? People who can't claim the subsidy are now finding a new house out of reach. So instead of expanding home ownership, the Chancellor has restricted affordability to those who can get easy credit. Because he has picked a tiny pool of winners, everyone else loses out.

But can Osborne see the damage he's doing? Not remotely. In fact, next year he'll be rolling out a new London Help to Buy. While all in favour of helping people in London buy, this approach will actually mean even fewer affordable houses overall.

More affordable housing requires more houses and less cheap credit.


10 DEC 2015

The elitist Establishment is feeding the Donald Trump monster

Isn't Donald Trump appalling? He's brash, abrasive, and obnoxious – not to mention deeply illiberal. He even treats the US Constitution with contempt. But here's the thing: if everyone agrees he's so awful, why is he so popular?

Millions of Americans support Donald Trump because they can't stand mainstream politicians. Confidence in Washington has plummeted. People look at Congress and see both parties cosying up to lobbyists. They know that legislators collude to gerrymander electoral districts – denying voters a real choice.

The political cartel creates bland politics. A year ago, everyone assumed this presidential election would be a contest between another Clinton and another Bush. In a country founded on rejecting monarchy, politics has become dynastic. Is it really a shock that voters are thumbing their nose at that?

In the West, we are fortunate to be citizen consumers. Choice is a normal in almost every area of our lives. Why should we be expected to put up with identical politicians?

Hatred of the political classes is the fuel for Trump's campaign. That's why he says ever more outrageous things. On Monday, a new opinion poll suggested his support in the first primary state – Iowa – was fading. His response? Bait the Establishment. Right on cue, President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and his Republican rivals lined up to condemn him – and handed him just the boost he wanted.

The people who really fear Trump are the Republican Establishment. They can't bear the thought of him winning the nomination. Yet they helped make his candidacy possible. Under Bush Junior, they complacently assumed the Republican base was behind big-spending, oversized Federal Government, and illiberal economic intervention. They expanded Washington as much as the Democrats. Now the base has rejected them because of it. Donald Trump is the monster they created.

People on this side of the Atlantic need to understand that hysterically attacking Trump only makes him stronger. Instead of virtue signalling at PMQs about foreign political showmen, maybe we could allow MPs for Cumbria to ask about flooding. When political insiders focus on self-righteous grandstanding instead of real issues, is it any wonder people are sick of them?


09 DEC 2015

What should Britain's defence priorities be? Tell us what you think

Britain's armed forces need the best possible equipment to keep us safe. That means getting the best possible value for money in defence procurement. Yet for decades the Government has prioritised the supposed interests of big defence corporations over the interests of the country.

I believe defence procurement needs radical reform. Watch this video and read our paper to find out why. Then tell us if you agree in our poll.




09 DEC 2015

Fake rows. Bogus bust ups. The EU elite take us for fools

The Prime Minister is supposed to be at odds with the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk. If the anonymous briefings are to be believed, unless Brussels backs down, daring Dave will jolly well campaign to leave.

Except it's all balls. A deal has been quietly agreed, and all this bogus bust up is designed to make it look like a big win for Britain.

We know this because Cabinet minister Iain Duncan Smith has let it slip that the PM has already cooked up a deal "behind closed doors". This whole row is a farce.

What this bogus deal does reveal is the contempt that the political elite have for the voters. Thinking that it is still 1990-something, they believe they can spin and manipulate public opinion.

Stage a couple of fake rows, and their pet pundits in the press lobby will loyally write it all up as a big win for Blighty.

I'm not so sure. We live in an age of deep seated distrust of politicians. Folk can and will see through it.

Dave's new deal is meaningless. Staging a scripted row fools no one.

It's because of stunts like this that trust in the political class is at an all-time low, and radical politics around the world is on the rise.

We don't need to be governed by a remote elite that holds us in contempt. Come the referendum, we can end this charade – and defy the Downing Street clique - once and for all.


08 DEC 2015

State-sponsored multiculturalism is back

Is Britain still a Christian country? The evidence around us suggests it is: people are buying Christmas presents; choirs are singing Christmas carols; radio stations are playing Christmas songs. So why does a Government commission claim it isn't?

The new report by the Commission on Religion and Belief claims that religion - and particularly Christianity – is in decline. It says Britain needs a new "national conversation" on "fundamental values." It demands that national and civic events mirror "the pluralist character of modern society."

But does this really reflect Britain today? Yes, fewer people go to church. But British culture is still hugely influenced by Christianity. People of all faiths and none share elements of Christian culture – like Christmas. Look at the Tube map: Blackfriars, Charing Cross, St. Pancras. The church is part of the landscape.

Christianity is also intertwined with our legal system. Common law is rooted in biblical commandments. From Magna Carta to the Bill of Rights, the relationship between church and state has framed our constitution - and enshrined the principle of religious liberty for every citizen. 

Britain's religious identity is about the foundations on which our civilisation stands. Fundamental change should be decided directly by the people – and perhaps organically over time - not by unelected officials and academics.

But I suspect most people are perfectly comfortable living in a Christian country. Commissions like this are part of a multiculturalist agenda imposed by the ruling elite.

The new report is full of multiculturalist doublespeak. For example: "the right to free speech includes the right to offend, but the latter does not enjoy the same degree of importance and immunity." All free speech is equal, but some is more equal than others.

It also tries to deny the connection between religious ideology and terrorism. It claims there is no "one-way causal link between a worldview, ideology or narrative on the one hand and specific actions and behaviours on the other." Recent events in Paris, San Bernadino, and Leytonstone suggest otherwise. Perhaps the Commissioners missed Sayed Qutb's Milestones?

The Church of England criticised the report, saying it had "fallen captive to liberal rationalism." If only! Multiculturalism can't be pinned on the Enlightenment. It has, however, been championed by the clergy - in fact Rowan Williams was one of the Commission's patrons. The Church can hardly complain about the results of its own policy now.

Britain doesn't need to apologise for its Christian roots. Creating a cultural vacuum can only make our society worse. Let's ignore this attempt at cultural engineering, and have a happy Christmas!


07 DEC 2015

Corbyn's comrades ruin Latin America

Last month, the people of Argentina rejected Peronism and elected Mauricio Macri. Now the people of Venezuela are set to turf out Hugo Chavez's successor Nicolas Maduro. Why? Because socialism has brought both countries to ruin.

Both Argentina and Venezuela are in economic crisis. Inflation in both countries is rampant, driving up the cost of living, and depressing living standards. Nationalisation has caused industrial stagnation. Price controls have created supply shortages of basic goods. Crime and corruption are pervasive. In Venezuela, the healthcare system is collapsing, and State repression of dissent is increasingly ugly.

These ought not to be poor countries. Both are rich in natural resources. Their economies have been destroyed by central planning. A corrupt elite in both countries lives in luxury off the backs of the people they rule. As the supermarket shelves have emptied and medicine run out, Maduro and Kirchner have amassed millions. Socialism has made the rich richer, and the poor poorer. It's like an Ayn Rand novel come to life.

None of this is surprising. What does surprise me is that the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition is an open admirer of Nicolas Maduro. He even says so on his campaign website, claiming: "Success for radical policies in Venezuela is being achieved by providing for the poorest, liberating resources."


05 DEC 2015

United for Brexit

Yesterday night's Brexit rally in Canterbury was by all accounts a fantastic success. If you missed it, don't panic! There are two more coming up in the South East. I'll be speaking at the last - in Eastbourne on 19th December.

The Brexit campaign is hotting up. Before the end of 2017, you will have the chance to have your say on Britain's membership of the EU. Over the next two years, I'll be joining people from all parties and all sectors of society to make the case that Britain will be richer, safer, and freer if we vote leave and take back control.

This month's rallies – organised by Daniel Hannan MEP – feature representatives of the Conservatives, Labour, and UKIP. Guests at last night's rally heard from one of this country's greatest living authors, Frederick Forsyth. In Eastbourne, I'll be speaking alongside Jim Mellon – one of Britain's most successful investors.

The Brexit campaign transcends normal politics. It unites people from all walks of life who may disagree deeply about how to run Britain, but all believe that the British people – not Brussels bureaucrats - should decide.

The EU referendum will determine the future of this country. Now is the time for everyone who wants to take back control of Britain's destiny to get involved. Start this month: join me on the 19th.


04 DEC 2015

It's time to break the college cartel

Isn't it odd that almost all British universities charge undergraduates the full £9k a year? The idea was that different universities providing different kinds of education would charge different prices. Yet instead they all charge the same. Why? Because they are a cartel.

Universities aren't just a cartel for fees. They are a cartel for ideas. Yes, there is still incredible research in the sciences – because it is hard to politicise the empirical method. But in the humanities and social sciences, leftist orthodoxies are barely ever challenged. Universities are so dominated by leftist groupthink that they actively silence anyone who thinks differently.

Groupthink has meant that publicly funded universities no longer serve a public purpose. Since the 1970s in America, think tanks replaced universities as the producers of new ideas. Now the same has happened here.

Who is producing new ideas to deal with our broken public finances? In the last month, the IEA, the Adam Smith Institute, and the Legatum Institute have all launched projects challenging fundamental economic assumptions with long-term thinking. Three think tanks are producing more than the whole university system.

Who is coming up with new thinking to fix our broken banking system? The only major, radical thinker at a university is Jesus Huerta de Soto. Otherwise, the only places to find original ideas are think tanks like the Cobden Centre.

Universities are unable to challenge Establishment ideas because they are the Establishment. They share the same statist outlook because they are all big, bureaucratic, taxpayer-funded organisations. Just like at the BBC, leftist assumptions are institutionalised and pervasive. Supporting the free market, controlled immigration, and responsible government spending would run counter to their whole ethos.

As a result, the ivory tower is higher than ever before. Universities are cut off from society. They rely on a research funding model that backs projects precisely because the market – i.e. ordinary people – would never have any use for them. They think they have a right to taxpayers' money, even though the vast majority of taxpayers don't benefit from anything they do.

People across the world are realising the political cartel needs to be broken. The academic cartel should be next in line.


03 DEC 2015

Labour represents elites, not working people. The real alternative is UKIP.

Labour was once a decent party. It used to represent working people. Now it represents only elites and Maoists. Today, the progressive, radical alternative to corporatist Toryism is UKIP.

The Labour party has been severed from its roots. The party of Keir Hardie used to reflect the sectional interest of organised labour. Its MPs used to be people who had worked in industry.

But many Labour MPs today are indistinguishable from the Tories. They do the same PPE degrees at the same Oxbridge colleges. They spend their entire careers inside the Westminster bubble. They created the soggy Blairite consensus which has monopolised politics for the last two decades. They are part of the parasitic Establishment.

It is because Labour lost touch with its roots that party members rebelled in the leadership election, and voted for someone completely different. But Comrade Corbyn is even more out of kilter with what Labour used to be. His anti-Western worldview is remarkable in a party that used to be so proudly British. He speaks for the mob in the streets and on Twitter, not working people.

Corbyn and Blair are supposed to be polar opposites. In fact, they have more in common than they would like to admit. Both are creatures of unrepresentative elites in Islington. Champagne socialists and bohemians have dominated progressive politics for too long.

The real progressive alternative to the Tories today is UKIP. In the long, English, radical tradition of the levellers and the Chartists, UKIP stands for the ideals of liberty, democracy, low taxes, and free markets that made Britain great, and will make her greater still.

For as long as anyone can remember, the Lib Dems have been the mid-term alternative to the Government. That is no longer true. UKIP has firmly established itself in that role. Against all the odds, the public has broken the Westminster cartel and made UKIP Britain's third party.

Whatever the Westminster elites think, Labour has no divine right to hold safe seats whose voters it no longer represents. UKIP - as a serious, radical, progressive alternative - can displace Labour too.


02 DEC 2015

The EU's deal with Turkey means we have lost control of our borders

The EU's new deal with Turkey means non-EU citizens will now be able to live in the UK without any permission from our Government. We have lost control of our borders.

From October 2016, Turkish citizens will be able to travel within the Schengen area without visas, and 400,000 Syrians will be settled across Schengen countries. Once they have European residency papers, they will then be able to come to Britain – even though Britain isn't part of Schengen.

This deal is meant to solve the migration crisis. It is full of sweeteners to incentivise Turkey to control its border with Syria and stem the flow of migrants to Europe. But it is hard to see how migration to Europe can be controlled by giving 75 million Turks unrestricted access.

In fact, this agreement will give us no control at all. Europe has no way of logging people in. We don't know that people who enter won't stay – and we won't know if they do.

This deal is dangerous. We know from the Paris attacks that jihadist terrorists have already got in to Europe by posing as refugees. Opening Europe up to a country that ISIS can easily infiltrate is asking for trouble.

It is also deeply undemocratic. The British people were never consulted about freedom of movement within Europe. Now we have no say over free movement not just from outside Europe, but from a warzone. We were never asked about giving up control of our borders to the Eurocrats. Now our border control is being abandoned altogether without our consent.

But the fault for this hugely misguided policy lies not just in Brussels, but also in Number 10. It is David Cameron who has allowed the EU to negotiate on our behalf, and enact policy that endangers our national security.

The British people are powerless to change this decision. But some time between now and the end of 2017, citizens will finally get their say. The EU referendum gives the people the chance to regain power over Britain. We need to vote leave to take back control.


01 DEC 2015

How do you feel about forced adoption?

How would you react if the State took away your child?

Watch our video about the scandal of forced adoption, and tell us how you feel in our poll below. 




01 DEC 2015

UKIP: the low tax, progressive alternative

Austerity politics is over. That was the message of the Autumn Statement. From now on, this Government is about high borrowing, high spending, and high taxation – all based on the fantasy of eternal economic growth. George Osborne is leaving Britain in worse shape to face another recession than Gordon Brown did.

The fundamental problems in our economy remain unresolved. Over the last five years, the national debt has doubled. The Government is still spending billions more than it takes in taxes. Welfare is still unreformed. Productivity is worryingly low. Britain's trade deficit is wider than ever. Britain's banks are still dangerously exposed to toxic debt. The Bank of England is still too afraid to raise interest rates from record negative levels.

Like Gordon Brown, George Osborne assumes that the economy will continue growing forever. But the economy works in cycles: a period of growth, followed by a correction.

So what happens when the next crash hits? When the national debt is already so vast, where is Osborne planning to find the money for another dose of "fiscal stimulus"? When interest rates can't go any lower, how can the Bank of England inject more "monetary stimulus"?

The truth is Osborne isn't planning. He hasn't fixed the roof while the sun is shining. In fact, he isn't even trying anymore. He has left Britain dangerously unprepared for the next recession.

Now that the Labour party has embraced its inner Maoist, the Tory leadership has clearly decided to fill the vacuum on the centre-left. The Conservatives are now New Labour. They have already broken the promise to safeguard "economic security" on which they were elected only months ago.

We cannot fix our broken economy without radical change. Businesses need to be set free from crippling regulation. Families need relief from high taxes. The State needs to slim down and spend within its means.

The Conservatives no longer support lower taxes and a smaller State. Only one party offers a responsible alternative to kamikaze borrow-and-spend economics. Only UKIP.


30 NOV 2015

How to resign and spark a tricky by-election - my guide for rebellious MPs

It's not much fun being a Labour MP right now.

Just as you were trying to come to terms with not winning the last election, Jeremy Corbyn takes over as leader. Its not just that someone you used to regard as a bit of a joke is now in charge. He's unelectable.

Yet there he now is, backed up by hundreds of thousands of new members convinced that their Twitter timeline reflects the views of middle England. Worst of all, they are demanding that you tag along with every daft demand – or face deselection.

"People don't speak to each other face-to-face as aggressively as they do on Twitter," said one Labour acquaintance of mine. "Except in Labour branches."

Sooner or later, it will end badly. I hope that some of the saner MPs in the Labour party don't wait to be pushed. Here's my advice on how to jump:

1. Be discreet. If you are going to make the move, don't let on. You don't owe Jeremy and the comrade clique anything. Make sure that the first that they hear of your departure is on the news.

2. Don't make it about you. The mad Maoists in your own party are doing everything possible to make George Osborne a shoe-in for 2020. Progressive reform and the values you believe in are being torpedoed from within. When you jump, be sure that folk realise it's not about you. It's about those reformist values that made you join Labour in the first place.

3. Insist on a by-election. Between 1701 and 1918, a by-election had to be called every time an MP was invited to join the government. Think of it as a sort of confirmation hearing. Insist on a by-election to confirm your move with the electorate. It's the only honourable way. Incidentally, there is no disgrace if they do say "No". What would be disgraceful would be to live life subservient to people you cannot respect.

4. Never call it defection. If you switch parties, you will be frequently asked about your "defection", as if you were some sort of Soviet spy who betrayed their country. It is not you who is the mad Marxist. Remain true to what took you into politics to begin with.

5. Constituents first. Always be available for local people. Hold regular surgeries. Respond quickly to local residents. You never know when youmight need their support. They – not the shower now running the Opposition Whips office – are your boss.

6. Join a new party. If you believe in radical political reform in the spirit of the Chartists, respect the free market, and want to break up the political and economic cartels that increasingly run our country, join UKIP. I did, and I've never enjoyed being an MP more. Many of your party's traditional supporters have already made the move. Come with us. If those are not the sort of things you believe in, then why not run as an independent? Seriously. The days when we can do politics without big, corporate parties is coming.

You did not go into politics in order to be told what to think by Diane Abbott. So don't. Sack your whips. Do the job on your constituents' terms. Free yourself from the shrill tyranny of those who imagine that Facebook likes are more important than votes.

Incidentally, you will have much, much more fun too.

This article was first published by The Telegraph.


29 NOV 2015

Subsidised mortgages just means more debt

Who benefits from the Government's Help to Buy scheme?

George Osborne wants you to believe that it'll be first time buyers. And to be sure, a lucky few will benefit. But Help to Buy is really a subsidy to bankers, developers, and people who already own property.

If you are a young person wanting to own your own home, and if you do not happen to be on the list of the lucky few who get a subsidized mortgage, house prices go up even further beyond your reach. Even if you do get a Help to Buy loan, what the Chancellor is doing is giving you more debt.

Help to Buy means first-time buyers borrow more. By making it easier for them to get mortgages, it pushes up property prices. It transfers wealth from people who don't own a house to people who do – and the bankers who lend them the money.

It's also good news for developers. Help to Buy encourages first-time buyers to borrow money from the taxpayer if they are buying a new build property. Osborne claims this will boost the housing supply. But he won't deal with the real reason there are too few houses: restrictive red-tape regulation. Help to Buy just uses unsuspecting first-time buyers to transfer taxpayers' money to big developers. It's classic crony corporatism.

Osborne economics is pushing up rents. His clampdown on buy-to-let will end up cutting the supply of rental properties, and raising the cost of renting as a result. Thanks to the Chancellor, young people face a double whammy of unaffordable property prices and higher rents.

Taxing buy-to-let isn't fair on pensioners either. Lots of people invested money in rental property after Gordon Brown raided their private pensions. Now his successor is eating their nest egg again.

The Chancellor is spending £10 billion on this subsidy alone. The Autumn Statement was littered with others. Osborne is quick to claim to be a Thatcherite. His real spirit guide is that ultimate corporatist Ted Heath.

Ted Heath once thought he had fixed the economy via various corporatist wheezes. It did not end well. Neither will the Osborne mortgage subsidy.


28 NOV 2015

Cheer up, its Christmas shopping time! In defence of mass consumption

Self-righteous British media types love to hate so-called Black Friday – the start of the Christmas shopping season. They can't bear the "consumerism": millions of people freely choosing products they want at prices they can afford. The horror!

"Britain doesn't have Thanksgiving. Black Friday as a US import designed to make folk spend after Thanksgiving and before Christmas," the chattering classes moan. "Why are we importing such vulgar American materialism?"

I don't think there is anything vulgar about consumer choice. I happen to believe it is rather wonderful.

I grew up in a country where people were denied free choice.  In Uganda under Idi Amin, rulers stole what they could, while restricting and regulating what folk could buy and sell. You needed permits for everything in an economy that produced little.

Perhaps those pundits who sneer at consumerism simply do not know what its like for a society to not have much to consume?

Instead of sneering at Black Friday, we should be asking why there are so many people in the world who are still denied the right to choose how to live their lives. And why in so many areas of our lives – schools, hospitals, public transport, energy providers – we have so little choice. Usually it has something to do with a remote bureaucratic cartel deciding how resources should be allocated, instead of letting people decide for themselves.

American elites whine about Black Friday contradicting the spirit of Thanksgiving. In fact, they have more in common than you might think. They're both about choice.

Thanksgiving began with a group of people who left Europe to live without fear of religious persecution. They founded a society based on the right to choose. That ideal of freedom is the root of American prosperity today.

We may not have a formal Thanksgiving in Britain. But that shouldn't turn us into miserable pessimists. On the contrary: on a day like Black Friday, we should be grateful for the choice and prosperity we enjoy.


27 NOV 2015

On Short money, the Government is following UKIP's lead

This week, George Osborne proposed a 19% cut to Short money - public funding for Opposition parties. Taxpayers will now pay less to subsidise politics. This is a direct result of what UKIP has done in Parliament.

As the only MP for a party that got almost 4 million votes, I was entitled to a vast amount of public money. We felt that taking the full whack simply wasn't right. Instead, we decided to reduce the amount we received unilaterally.

We proved it is possible to do more with less. We showed the Government that other Opposition parties can do the same.

Of course, the other parties don't agree. Not the Lib Dems. Not the Greens. And certainly not Labour. New politics? We're the only party doing anything different.

The Commons will probably have to vote on the cut. If so, I'll be voting for it. It looks like most other Opposition MPs will vote against. Once again the Westminster cartel will try to take as much money from the taxpayer's pocket as it can get.

Opposition parties are furious with George Osborne for this. They accuse him of being underhand. But it isn't the Chancellor who needs to explain himself. It's them. Opposition MPs need to explain why they expect working people across Britain to fork out more hard-earned cash for spinners and spads in Parliament.

Is politics really as expensive as these politicians make out? Do spin doctors really need six-figure salaries at the taxpayer's expense? The comrades Chairman Corbyn has been hiring don't even believe in private property.

Cutting the politics subsidy is a little Christmas bonus for the taxpayer. You'd have to be a turkey not to vote for it.


26 NOV 2015

Immigration control? This government isn't even pretending to try

Today, David Cameron wants to talk about Syria. He would like the media to focus on whether or not he has the numbers in the House of Commons to authorise military action.

I happen to think there is a case for military action, but I respect that there is an honourable argument the other way. I'm open-minded.

But what I think we all have a right to resent is that we are being asked to focus on what the government should or should not do in the eastern Mediterranean, rather than asking why the government has failed to secure our borders here at home.

On the very same day that Mr Cameron has got us talking Syria, shocking new immigration statistics show that this government has comprehensively failed to control our borders.

Over the last year, 636,000 people immigrated to Britain - mostly to settle. Net migration hit 336,000 - the highest on record. While non–EU immigration rose only slightly, immigration from within the EU jumped by 42,000, or 19%.

David Cameron was elected to office on a promise to reduce net migration to under 100,000 per year. But in the last year, the increase in net migration alone was 82,000. The truth is he made his pledge just to return to Number 10. He had no intention of keeping it. Now he wants to change the subject and talk about something else.

Secure in Downing Street, with the looney Labour party on a long march to Maoist irrelevance, Cameron has give up even pretending to try to control immigration.

Statecraft should entail securing our own borders before we talk about going to war. Before we talk about sending tens of thousands of Western troops into Syria, why don't we debate how to control the hundreds of thousands of people who are freely entering Britain?


26 NOV 2015

Blair is back

The Labour party has now lurched so far to the left that George Osborne has decided to take on the mantle of Tony Blair. There is no other way to understand yesterday's Autumn statement.

Labour's shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, has – bizarrely - started quoting Chairman Mao. Really. This has created the space for George – the master of political tactics - to shift left.

And like Blairite budgets before, this one sounded pretty good – but the numbers don't add up.

Osborne announced he was scrapping cuts and going to reduce the deficit. Like Blair, he seems to be over-committing unearned tax revenue before it's even come in.

The real significance of this financial statement is that yes, there will be some fiscal leeway to play around with due to economic growth. But George has, like every other left of centre administration since the Second World War, decided to use the leeway he has to expand the state, not cut taxes.

Billions that could be spent on tax cuts will go on the Chancellor's favourite hard hat projects. The consequences of this choice will be profound.

It means that those who want lower taxes and less government no longer have an ally in a corporatist, Heathite Tory party. George's Conservative party is patrician and interventionist. He even said we needed an industrial strategy.

Here's a final depressing thought: with George at the helm, this year our government will spend more on overseas aid than on the entire Home Office budget, including the police.

Perhaps all this creates the space for a low tax, small government, patriotic non-Maoist alternative?


25 NOV 2015

Cut spending, empower Parliament

Today, George Osborne will deliver the Autumn Statement. He might use clever clogs words to hide it from us, but things aren't going well. Government spending keeps going up. The national debt is still increasing. The deficit is getting wider. In fact, the only thing that's falling is the Chancellor's popularity rating.

David Cameron correctly styled himself the heir to Blair. George Osborne has been less keen to admit he is the heir to Brown. But his record speaks for itself.

Like Brown, Osborne has presided over an unprecedented rise in public debt – which has doubled since he took office. Like Brown, he is borrowing during an economic boom. Like Brown, his spending plans are based on constant economic growth – the illusion that he has abolished boom and bust.

Osborne is deliberately disingenuous about controlling spending. But to be fair to him, no modern Government has managed to make cuts – not even Margaret Thatcher's.

Why?

Because the executive has a vested interest in increasing spending. Every Government department always wants more money. So ministers sitting at the Cabinet table invariably lobby for more funding for their departments.

But it hasn't always been this way. The budget wasn't always written entirely behind closed doors in the Treasury. Parliament used to be able to amend the text. In fact, the enormous twentieth-century expansion of the State can be traced to the point in the 1930s when MPs lost the power to amend budgets. Since then they can only boo or cheer. Often MPs won't even understand the tax and spending as they do so.

Look at countries that keep spending in check: Switzerland, Australia, South Korea. They have powerful legislatures that do their job of controlling public spending. The United States may have serious debt problems, but they would be even worse were it not for the power of Congress. Twice in recent years, the legislature has pushed through budget cuts against the will of the President.

Imagine what we could do here if Parliament had the same power. What if each government department had to have its spending plan scrutinised and approved by a select committee of MPs? What if select committees had the power to veto departmental budgets?

The Autumn Statement is a ritualistic sham. The Chancellor's statement to Parliament gives the illusion of accountability. In fact, Parliament is powerless to do anything but rubber stamp his plans. Unsustainable spending is possible because there are no real checks on the Treasury's dominion over taxpayers' money. The solution is to empower Parliament.


24 NOV 2015

LEAKED: Labour Party social media code of conduct

The Labour party is about to get its members to sign up for a code of conduct for social media, apparently. Here is a draft copy of the leaked memo outlining the soon-to-be-compulsory dos and don'ts:

1. Do remember that in the new politics the party whips are much more relaxed – so always tweet on message

2. Don't be disrespectful to others - unless you're referring to Simon Danczuk or Tristram or Blair. Or anyone not in Momentum.

3. Don't use hate speech – unless you're talking about #Toryscum. Remember someone need not be a Tory to be #ToryScum

4. Do broadcast your support for foreign terrorist groups – especially if you're a party spin doctor

5. Do express your opposition to evil multinationals using an Apple, Samsung, or Sony device, and where possible free Wifi provided by Starbucks

6. Do use Facebook to complain about how Facebook doesn't pay enough tax

7. Should you lose a debate or election among real voters, do retreat into your Twitter timeline to have your prejudices reinforced.

8. Jeremy Corbyn is the New Politics - so do not disagree

9. Don't forget that in the new politics likes are more important than votes

10. Use a hashtag to signal your virtue and differentiate you from #ToryScum


23 NOV 2015

We need new defence thinking to fight the new wars

Today, the Government launches the Strategic Defence and Security Review. This is an opportunity to rethink our strategic assumptions, and it is all the more essential that we do so in light of the recent Paris attacks.

Put simply, jihadist terror blurs the boundary between external defence and internal security. Our secret intelligence agencies are as much on the front line as our troops serving in northern Iraq or Cyprus. Defence spending must reflect this.

We need to strengthen our partnerships with democratic allies around the world, not merely those members of NATO with whom we joined forces to counter the old Soviet threat.

With unprecedented pressure on our public finances, and some extraordinary new and demanding security challenges, now is the time to rethink how we convert money into military muscle. The brutal truth is that we have not always been very good at getting bang for our buck.

That tended not to matter during the post-Cold War interlude when we could all sleep safely at night under the protection of the American hyper power. Long may the Pax Americana continue - but even Uncle Sam was not able to avert the Paris atrocity.

We face what academic Mary Kaldor has termed "new wars" – asymmetric threats waged between a combination of states and non-state networks. This is not a reason to carry on with clumsy Cold War era defence procurement, but all the more reason to ensure that we are nimble in developing and researching new weapons.

For too long, UK defence procurement has been plagued with problems. Major projects routinely come in late and over budget. Some, like the Nimrod MRA4 spy plane, never get off the ground at all. Complications in these projects and others have left us without key military capabilities.

UK defence procurement elevates the vested interests of defence contractors above the national interest. Elements of the defence budget have been spent as if they were part of a job creation scheme. This needs to stop.

Even in World War II, we relied on our allies for key munitions and equipment. Britain's defence industry today would not function without collaboration with foreign manufacturers.

Successive governments have consolidated the UK defence industry. In doing so, they sought the advantages of scale. What they also did was constrain supply.

In any market where supply is constrained, the seller sets the terms of trade. So, too, in defence. This is just one of the reasons why "defence inflation" is so high. Its also explains why despite having the fifth largest defence budget in the world, our armed forces are often ill equipped.

Ministers need to move towards more "off the shelf" procurement. Yes, there are certain weapons systems that we need to manufacture entirely ourselves. But there are many bits of kit that frankly we should buy off allied countries.

Various governments have tried collaborative production of different weapons systems – with mixed results. We ought to do more to try joint purchasing to shift the terms of trade away from contractors and drive down costs.

Thanks to the UK's absurdly complex procurement system, the UK defence budget currently has to pay for more than 10,000 officials to manage different contracts. Think of it as PFI gone mad.

Yet in the last Parliament, the regular army was cut by 20,000. Ministers last week announced an additional 1,900 intelligence officers. How many more we might we yet have if we did not have such a cumbersome procurement system?

The West faces serious threats. We do not have the luxury of misspending. Now is the time to change.

This article was first published by The Telegraph.


23 NOV 2015

It is not enough to be right. You need to be seen to have the right motives

How on earth does Jeremy Corbyn keep getting away with it? He and his coterie of supporter now running the Labour party could not be more wrong-headed.

They deny that government has overspent, advocating that we spend even more. They dither over whether the police should be allowed to use lethal force against armed terrorists. Perhaps forgetting that the attack on the Twin Towers happened before the Iraq war, they appear to blame Western policy makers for attacks on the West. One has even seemed to suggest that Mi5 and the security services be disbanded.

Wrong, wrong and yet more wrong.  Yet they are still on 27 percent in the polls.  Remarkably, around one in four are still apparently prepared to vote for them.

How do they get away with it?

Motive. Or rather the perception that some people have as to the motives of Comrade Corbyn and co.

"Yes", many of the 27 percent will say. "Jeremy might be wrong about this or that. But he means well."

Don't misunderstand me. I do not believe that Jeremy's motives are any more elevated than those of any other party leader. My point is that as long as some people trust his motives, they will support him – no matter how wrong he may be.

The converse is also true.  No matter how right you might be in politics, people will not support you if they do not trust your motives.

Immigration, Europe, the economy, energy; you can win the argument on all the big macro issues of the day. But you still will not get the votes if folk do not trust why you are saying what you are saying.


21 NOV 2015

Osbrown's debt disaster

George Osborne has been telling us for five years that he is closing the deficit. Today's borrowing figures are so bad, it is almost as if Gordon Brown was still in charge.  

While telling us he has been dealing with the national debt, on George's watch the national debt has doubled. This is a serious problem – and not just because we are saddling future generations with an enormous bill. The bigger the debt gets, the harder the deficit is to close.

Look at the Government's spending figures for the last few years. Departmental budgets have been cut. But there is one item that keeps getting bigger: debt interest. Currently we are paying £1 billion every week to the Government's bondholders. We have been spending more on debt interest every year than on education and police combined.

This situation will only get worse. The more we borrow, the higher the interest bill will be. The more our taxes will fund creditors instead of public services. The less impact departmental spending cuts will have. The worse our public services will be.

The Left will tell you that we shouldn't worry about borrowing. That spending cuts are unfair and cause inequality. In fact, they are the ones promoting inequality. Promoting borrowing means that the British people will increasingly work for the benefit of a rentier class. They are advocating a two-tier society.

The only way to secure public services and reduce inequality is to balance the public books before it's too late. After five years, the Chancellor needs to follow through on his promises.


20 NOV 2015

The new politics is digital

Politics is changing. Across the democratic world, establishment elites are losing the trust of the people. Insurgents – from Donald Trump to Alexis Tsipras – are on the rise. But real change won't come from messiahs, but from modernity.

Innovators in California have launched a new website that gives a taste of the future. Called Crowdpac, the site uses data from voting records, speeches, and political donations to give a comprehensive picture of the stances of American politicians on a range of key issues. Voters can use Crowdpac to match their views to the candidate they most agree with. It's the political equivalent of online dating.

Crowdpac is not the first website to match voters with politicians, but it offers new depth. In particular, it highlights the influence of lobbying. By digging down into the political interests of rich donors, it gives a much greater guide than other sites as to the likely policy positions of the candidates they support. Its aim is ambitious: to "help end the stranglehold of big money donors and special interests on the political system."

Cronyism rightly angers electorates more than anything else. It's why many don't trust politicians. Voters know that partisan journalists won't give them the facts either – which is why many don't trust the media. Instead, voters are turning to outsiders whom they believe - or hope - can't be bought. In many cases, they will be disappointed.

Crowdpac offers a better way. By providing data directly to voters, it gives the public an insight into whom their elected representatives are really serving without the intermediation of any media spin. It will make politicians much more transparent - and much more accountable as a result. Crowdpac will help to restore trust in politics in the only way possible: by giving politicians an incentive to be trustworthy.

I believe Crowdpac is only the start. Three years ago, in my book The End of Politics and the Birth of iDemocracy, I predicted that the digital revolution would transform politics for the better, and restore power to the people. It's already happening. And it goes to show: progress – not pessimism – will defeat the political cartel.


19 NOV 2015

Our current account deficit is as worrying as our budget deficit

Britain is a chronic borrower. Not just the Government, but the whole country. We are buying more than we sell, and making up the difference with debt. This is unsustainable.

Our current account deficit – the amount that the value of our imports exceeds the value of our exports – is the largest of any developed country as a share of GDP. In the last quarter, it was equivalent to 3.6% of national income, or £16.8 billion. Think about that for a second: we spent £16.8 billion more than we earned just this past summer.

The amazing thing is that 3.6% is an improvement. Last year, Britain's current account deficit was 5.5%, or £97.9 billion – an all-time record. But if you think we're moving in the right direction, don't get your hopes up: this quarter, it is set to widen again.

Buying more than we earn is made possible by enormous borrowing. It means that people across Britain are drowning in debt.

It is also funded by the sale of British buildings and businesses to foreign buyers. Wondering why foreign investors are allowed to buy London properties and drive up house prices? That's part of what's paying for our imports.

High borrowing is the result of low productivity. Exorbitant energy costs, caused by green taxes, are making our exports uncompetitive. Lax monetary policy is pumping money into assets instead of innovation.

We are also held back by being tied to the world's only declining trading bloc: the EU. During the recent visits of the Indian and Chinese leaders, the Government touted our trade with the far east. But non-EU Switzerland, with a population eight times smaller than ours, exports almost twice as much as us to China, and over four times as much to India. Switzerland also has a bilateral free trade deal with China, and is in the process of negotiating one with India – something that we, as EU members, can't do.

The EU is holding us back from doing what we're best at. Britain specialises in services; yet EU diktats make exporting services to the rest of the world much more difficult than it needs to be.

Politicians often talk about "rebalancing the economy." But balance won't boost our exports. What we really need is to do is focus on our strengths, and exploit our comparative advantage. To do that Britain – not Brussels – needs to be in control.


18 NOV 2015

The Closing of the American Mind?

What is the role of a university? Is it a place of free inquiry, which expands the bounds of knowledge, and rigorously scrutinises the orthodoxies of the day? Not anymore. Instead of promoting freedom of thought and speech, universities increasingly restrict it.

In The Closing of the American Mind, the American philosopher Allan Bloom warned about what was happening on campus. Relativism, he wrote, had replaced critical inquiry. Universities increasingly indoctrinated students with contempt for the past, and for the West. As a result, students learnt only to subscribe to a set of lazy cultural doctrines.

Bloom published his book in 1987. The situation has only got worse since. Students today actively work to restrict free speech. Any dissent from left-wing political norms is condemned on the basis that it is a form of oppression. Those who disagree face trial by the mob.

The campus inquisition has recently reached extraordinary proportions. At Yale, academics who questioned an e-mail calling for "cultural sensitivity" in Halloween costumes faced a gang of students demanding their resignations.

Here in Britain, it is no different. At Oxford last month, students claiming to be oppressed by a statue of Cecil Rhodes protested to insist the university remove it. "No platform" policies are used ban certain people – like members of a party that recently won 3.8 million votes - from speaking.

Students used to protest against the Establishment. Now they have become part of it. They collude with culturally Marxist academics to enforce orthodoxies, not challenge them. In the battle for truth and progress between Galileo and the Church, today's students are predominantly with the Church.

Freedom of thought and speech is indispensable to our society. It's what creates the innovation that propels economic progress. It's what differentiates the democratic West from the countries that millions are now fleeing. It is irresponsible for us in Britain to allow radical censorship to flourish at our public universities.

But the biggest losers from the campus inquisition, I suspect, are a large silent minority of students. Young, inquisitive people – like many I spoke to at Warwick University a few weeks ago – who don't agree with the left-wing consensus, but are too intimidated to say so. If we're going to worry about oppression on campus, they are the people we should be thinking about.


17 NOV 2015

When GP shortages are normal, healthcare needs a rethink

There is a chronic problem with GP access in my constituency. Many of my constituents cannot get an appointment to see a GP. This problem is not unique to Clacton; it is systemic. It requires a policy rethink.

We are used to living in a world of choice. In most walks of life, service providers compete for our custom. Yet when it comes to our health, we increasingly have no choice at all. In fact, for the residents of Tendring, it is patients who have to compete to see a GP.

This problem is not confined to Tendring, because it springs from national policy. Part of the reason Tendring has a GP shortage is that GP contracts are centralised, and are paid based on the size of their patient list, not necessarily the size of their workload. GPs are often disincentivised from working in areas where demand for healthcare is higher.

The practical result for many is that they bypass the GP altogether, and go straight to A&E. This in turn puts enormous pressure on hospitals. By any metric, this is a failure.

Believe it or not, in Germany and France, people don't have to go to a GP as their first point of call. Instead they often get their primary care straight from specialists. We are chaotically sleepwalking into something similar in the UK. Perhaps we need to take lessons from Europe and think about how we could make a non-GP-based healthcare system work.

The Government is supposed to be reforming healthcare to increase patient choice. As my constituents can testify, it clearly isn't working. Britain's population is aging; our healthcare system must be flexible if it is going to cope. We need to start thinking outside the box.


16 NOV 2015

The jihadist threat blurs defence and security. Will the SDSR reflect that?

Next week, the Government will publish its Strategic Defence and Security Review. The Paris attacks are a reminder that external defence and internal security can no longer be considered separate.

We think of national defence in terms of standing armies, air bases, and battleships. It is a structure that hasn't changed for as long as anyone can remember.

But as last week's attacks testify, the threat we face has changed. Since September 11th, the main danger to citizens of Western countries has been groups of terrorists with links to a global jihadist network. A handful of jihadis travelling through Europe can now threaten Western capitals more immediately than any hostile standing army.

At the same time, jihadist groups have carved out territory in failed states. Recruits are drawn from countries all over the world using social media. Most major conflict is no longer between states, but pits a state against jihadist groups, or jihadist groups against each other. Unconventional warfare has become conventional.

The change in the threat needs to change our assumptions about strategy. We probably can no longer look at our armed forces and our security services as separate. When IS and other jihadists work as united actors across borders, our defence services cannot make a distinction either.

We also have to be able to adapt quickly. Less time passed between the last British cavalry charge at Omdurman, Sudan and the first British tank charge in World War I than has now elapsed between the collapse of the Soviet bloc and today. Yet in our generation we have not been nimble enough in refocusing and adapting - not just our equipment, but our tactics and strategy.

Power projection remains necessary. We still need fast jets to target threats abroad. But fast jets wouldn't be much use against gunmen on the streets of London. It would be a mistake to privilege one weapon in our armoury over others. We can't be stuck with cavalry when our enemies are advancing in tanks. We mustn't end up trying to fight today's threats with yesterday's technology.

New threats require a new approach. Adaptive change is our ally in preserving our security; we cannot be afraid of it. I hope that will be reflected in the SDSR. 


15 NOV 2015

Islamism cannot be appeased

The Paris attacks are not a new phenomenon. Islamists have committed many similar murders in Europe, America, East Africa and most of all in the Middle East. Too often we have talked ourselves into believing the problem is our foreign policy, or our cartoons. It is time to realise these attacks are not a reaction. They are the implementation of a violent, imperialist ideology.

Islamism in Europe is on the rise. But in the Middle East and parts of Africa, it is already dominant. It fills ungoverned space, from Libya, to Somalia, to Yemen, to Gaza, to Iraq/Syria. It is state-sponsored in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Qatar. It is the motivating force behind both Sunni and Shia when they meet on the battlefield.

A day before the attacks in Paris, over 40 people were murdered in Islamist attacks in Beirut. The Lebanese capital – a place I have visited several times - used to be known as the Paris of the East. Yet the battle between the Shia Islamists of Hezbollah and the Sunni Islamists of ISIS and Al Nusra is steadily consuming Lebanon in Syria's civil war.

Islamists are reducing the Middle East to ruin. They are not the victims of aggression. They are the perpetrators. Their goal is total supremacy. They cannot be appeased.

What can the West do to counter Islamism?

Military action is one response. Thinking that if we leave Islamists alone, they will leave us alone is self-deception. Islamist ambitions are global. They must be met with force. We must not be deluded by wishful thinking to believe otherwise.

But force alone is not enough. We cannot ignore the fact that Islamist terrorism in the West is often home-grown, or that one of the Paris attackers may have successfully posed as a refugee. The Government is attempting to counter Islamist radicalisation in schools and communities. Liberal rationalism needs to get a lot more muscular and unapologetic. The Islamist threat also needs to be a factor in our immigration policy.

For too long Western foreign policy experts have buddied up to regimes in the Middle East that export, if not overt terrorism, a virulent, extremist terror-inducing ideology. We cannot remain allies of these governments unless they stop funding and exporting extremist creeds.

We need to stay to true to our ideals of liberal democracy. Our way of life is extraordinary and precious. We must not take it for granted. And yes, the West will need to fight to protect it.


13 NOV 2015

When Sweden reimposes border controls, the European project isn't working

Yesterday Sweden – the poster nation for open-door immigration – reintroduced border controls, in defiance of the Schengen Agreement. Swedish ministers say the volume of migrants entering the country has left them no choice. Austria, Germany, and France have already done the same. When even Europe's overtly integrationist states are placing national interest above federalism, the European project is in serious trouble.

Sweden claims the border checks are "temporary." But when they effectively abandoned the Scandinavian currency union, they said the same thing. That was a hundred years ago.

In fact, Euro elites think Schengen may be unsustainable. "Saving Schengen is a race against time," warns European Council president, Donald Tusk. "If we do not find a European solution for the migration crisis... then Schengen's dead," panics Luxembourg's foreign minister.

Yet the migrant crisis has shown that there can be no European solution, because European countries don't have a common interest or outlook. Sweden and Germany blame everyone else for not taking their "fair" share of migrants. But other countries don't see why they should pick up the tab for unilateral decisions to accept a million people taken in Stockholm and Berlin. Hungary, for one, refuses to be shamed into accepting any.

If anything, Sweden and Germany are now following Hungary's lead. Angela Merkel's popularity has plummeted as her immigration policy descends into chaos. Sweden's governing socialists are looking over their shoulders at the insurgent, Eurosceptic, and electorally successful Sweden Democrats. Swedes are increasingly concerned about social breakdown in Malmö and elsewhere, which many see as the result of mass immigration.

The gradual collapse of Schengen must inform our debate on the EU in Britain. Europhiles talk about staying in the EU as if it is static. But in reality the EU is in flux. Euro-elites – as usual - are pushing for more integration, but nation states are increasingly pulling in the other direction. Come what may, the status quo is over.


12 NOV 2015

Broadband and rail need competition, not nationalisation

How fast is your broadband? Vodafone claims it sells much faster broadband in Portugal, Spain, and Italy than consumers can access in the UK. Why? Because here, BT has a virtual monopoly.

In most of Britain, if you want broadband, you need to go through BT. Even if you buy it through another company, you'll most likely still be using BT's cables, because BT owns the only national network. Consumers have no real choice at all.

BT's monopoly is a big reason why many people find their Internet so slow. Most of BT's network is outdated copper cable. Even where fast fibre-optic cables have been installed, connections to individual houses and offices are still copper. But what incentive does BT have to upgrade its infrastructure? It has no competition.

The railways have the same problem. Like BT, Network Rail owns the only national network. There is no competition to drive down the cost of the infrastructure. Costs to consumers keep going up, but service stays slow.

Think the problem is privatisation? Think the solution is to nationalise our infrastructure?

Network Rail is a public monopoly: the rail network was never properly privatised, even as Railtrack - a supposedly private business. Dependent on government fiat and finance, Railtrack/Network Rail has morphed into becoming a branch of the State. BT is a private monopoly made possible by a heavily regulated telecom market, rigged by the State. Nationalisation isn't the solution; it's the problem.

The real solution is to break the monopolies. We need to think of ways to introduce competition, and give consumers a real choice. That might mean allowing other telecom companies to install their own fibre-optic cables along BT's routes. It might mean reuniting train and track, allowing both to be leased or bought together by a private operator.

Either way, if we keep restricting consumer choice, we'll only ensure that our infrastructure never gives us what we want.


11 NOV 2015

Trades Union members deserve the right to choose where their money goes

Yesterday I tabled an amendment to the Trade Union Bill to permit individual trade union members – instead of union barons – to choose which political party their dues support. In a world where individual choice is the norm, this reform is long overdue.

All of us take free choice for granted in our daily lives. Trades unionists are no exception. Yet the current rules prevent them from exercising free choice in their unions.

Under the current system, union barons get to decide which party members' political contributions fund. All members – no matter their own political opinions – are forced to support the same party.

The problem with this one-size-fits-all funding model isn't just that it denies individual members a choice. It also conflicts with the essence of the trade union movement. The purpose of unions is to allow workers to stand up to bosses. So why should workers defer union bosses on which party their donations support?

My amendment would empower union members to choose for themselves. It would give them the power to send their political fund contributions to a party directly. Those members who wanted to continue funding the party chosen by the union bosses could still do so. But those who wanted to send their money elsewhere would no longer be compelled to bankroll a party they do not support.


10 NOV 2015

Dave's New Deal is a dud

So there it is. The Prime Minister's grand new plan to redefine our unhappy relationship with the European Union.

Except it's not so new, is it?

First, the PM says we need binding safeguards so that the block of 19 Eurozone countries cannot out vote the rest. Good luck with that. If 19 of 28 are in a common currency, the Euroblock will have a massive gravitational pull. It is in the nature of power that they will exert that gravitational pull. The only way not to be subject to rules written and rigged against us is to leave.

Mr. Cameron talked a lot about improving EU competitiveness. Just like Tony Blair did circa 2000-2001.

For all his talk about deregulation and scrapping rules, he also talks about the need to "deepen the single market" for services. You cannot have both. If we extend the single market rule making, we smother more sectors of the economy under job-destroying red tape. If you doubt me, look at the destructive impact of the EU's VAT rules on small Internet businesses.

Then the PM talked about public disillusionment with the EU. Rather comically, he seems under the impression that removing the words "ever-closer union" will fix the problem.

He can change the preamble to whatever treaty he likes, the acquis communautaire will still apply, and as a result European court rulings will continue to rule in favour of more Europe. The ratchet will keep turning. The PM, I'm sure, knows this, yet he chooses to pretend that amending the preamble to the treaties is a solution.

Then Dave outlined his idea of national parliaments being able to veto EU rules. If enough national legislatures got together, they could force a rethink. Sounds good, eh? Except it would formalise the subjugation of our parliamentary system. Looked at the other way, it would mean that those we elect would be conceding that they could not decide things without the permission of other European institutions.

Far from sorting out the issue of our self-government, it would recognise its demise.

Perhaps the saddest thing about Dave's New Deal is the idea that it boils down to in-work benefit claims. If the PM really thinks that paying people who happen to live in Warsaw differently to those who happen to live in Walsall will resolve our EU problems, his New Deal is going nowhere.


10 NOV 2015

The EU's latest boost for British trade: ruining British ports

If there is one thing Britain has always relied on for international trade, it is our maritime ports. So guess what the latest British victim of EU regulation is going to be?

The EU's new Port Services Regulation is designed to impose internal competition on big, nationalised, uncompetitive continental ports. Yet it won't just apply to Rotterdam and Antwerp; it will hit Harwich and Hull as well.

British ports are nothing like those on the Continent. They are smaller, private, and consequently much more efficient. Our ports are major contributors to our economy, and require no subsidies from the taxpayer. They manage 95% of our trade in goods, and employ some 100,000 people.

But thanks to the new regulation, all that is set to change. Forcing internal competition on our ports will raise their costs and deter investment. Far from making them more competitive, the EU is jeopardising their future.

So what is the Government doing about it? After telling us for two years that they would fight to stop the regulation or get us an opt-out, a few weeks ago our political leaders gave the shipping industry their final answer: British ports will just have to live with it.

The BSE campaign constantly tells us that the EU is essential to Britain's trade. How can it be when it is about to ruin the one industry we really need?

But the bigger lie is that EU membership increases our influence as a trading power on the world stage. When our vital interests are ignored by the other member states and our objections overruled, it is obvious we have no influence within the EU, let alone outside it.


09 NOV 2015

Innovation - not regulation - will break the energy cartel

This winter many people will again be unable to afford to heat their homes. Every year, many old people die as a result of energy poverty. We have a moral duty to put a stop to this. But successive Governments have been making the situation worse.

Listen to the Establishment parties on energy: you'll find they're all saying the same thing. They all support green taxes that cost British households and industry £46 billion last year. They all back a rigged energy market, which restricts consumer choice and prevents genuine competition. And then they all blame the energy companies for driving up prices.

The truth is that energy prices have been driven up by politicians – and they have done it deliberately. In their obsession with global warming, they have designed a system to cut energy use by raising prices. 

What the political class and their bureaucratic buddies in Whitehall don't get is that the way to increase energy efficiency is not to restrict the market, but embrace it.

A new report by the Adam Smith Institute points the way forward: disruptive innovation can reduce energy consumption and energy prices at the same time. 


07 NOV 2015

Brexit or not, America wants to trade with us

Remember the American bureaucrat who claimed that the US would never do a free trade deal with the UK post-Brexit? His credibility took a hit when it emerged that he used to work for the European Commission, and so did his wife.

Now it has taken another, thanks to presidential candidate Jeb Bush.

"Great Britain is a sovereign nation, and they must make this decision about their relationship with Europe on their own," the former Florida Governor told Breitbart. "As President, if Great Britain made that decision of course the U.S. would work with them on a trade agreement."

Jeb Bush may not become president. But I suspect he speaks for the American people more than the State Department when he says the constitutional arrangements of a sovereign nation are no one else's business. That's the idea America was founded on.

Back in 1776, Americans felt the same toward London as many Brits feel toward Brussels today. They didn't understand why they needed to be taxed, regulated, and governed by a remote elite that didn't represent them. They believed they could just as well govern themselves.

Like Britain today, some pessimists believed they could never make it outside the British Empire. An independent outpost in a world dominated by European great powers seemed like a fantasy. But the optimists won the day, and the United States went on to become the most prosperous country the world has ever seen.

The idea that the US wouldn't do a bilateral free-trade agreement with the UK when it has happily done deals with a host of other countries is absurd. But the pessimistic prediction that Britain can't prosper outside the EU's red-tape curtain totally misses the lessons of history. Government by remote bureaucratic superstate is what holds nations back.

If we need an American to tell us about the consequences of independence, let's make it George Washington.


06 NOV 2015

Banking is still broken. The political Establishment still doesn't get why.

After waiting for over 2 hours, I finally got to speak in yesterday's debate about the sale of the taxpayers' shares in RBS. Listening to my colleagues reminded me why banking is crisis. Many stood up to criticise RBS, only to ignore the monetary framework that caused its collapse.

I spoke about the real reform we need: curbing the excesses of fractional reserve banking, and ending the glut of cheap credit. It's all in my paper, After Osbrown: Mending Monetary Policy.

Watch my speech – and read on!


05 NOV 2015

The CBI doesn't lobby for business - it lobbies for lobbyists

The corporatists at the CBI are inexplicably surprised that Comrade Corbyn doesn't want to meet them next week. If I were in his sandals, I wouldn't go either.

The pretence that the corporatist clique that calls itself the Confederation of British Industry represents British business is wrong. I wonder if perhaps the CBI should be prosecuted under the Trade Descriptions Act?

The CBI in my view represents not free-market capitalism, but crony corporatism. It seems to favour more regulation, higher subsidies, and bigger Government. If I am not mistaken, the CBI supported a prices-and-incomes policy in the 1970s, the ERM in the 1980s, and joining the Euro in the 1990s. In other words, they have a history of getting things seriously wrong.

I wonder if the CBI really represents those that produce and sell things in the companies that back it. I recall once attending a so-called business visit to Brussels some years ago. Many of the firms on the trip were household names.

"Yippee!" I thought. "I would get a real insight into what the wealth producers thought".

How wrong I was. It turned out that virtually all the representatives of all the big businesses on the trip were in fact from their Corporate Affairs departments. In other words, they were in-house lobbyists. They spent all the time chatting about who was being hired by which PR firm, and who was who in lobbying.

Perhaps it's much the same in terms of those who represent big firms at the CBI? Maybe they too come from the Corporate Affairs side of the business too? I think we can all see why lobbyists love Brussels. It's made for and by people like them.

Maybe that's why the CBI commissioned such a questionable poll on business attitudes to EU membership? Even the British Polling Council seems to have acknowledged that there is some doubt about the poll's methodology. All a bit Volkswagen, perhaps?

When the CBI tells us what business thinks it is really telling us what it thinks. And it is not quite the same thing a business.

I'm with Comrade Corbyn on this. If the CBI ever invited me to address them, I think I'd say a polite "no", too.


04 NOV 2015

Meet Osborne's new EU: same as the old EU

George Osborne's big speech in Germany was finally meant to reveal the Government's demands for "renegotiation" of Britain's relationship with the EU. Instead, he confirmed that the Government is not just backing the status quo, but supporting more Euro-integration.

Osborne's "key demands" will change nothing. Open-door immigration? That's a keeper. £350 million every week in EU membership fees? No change there. Common Agriculture Policy, Common Fisheries Policy, Common Foreign & Security Policy? No reform in sight.

In fact, Osborne made it clear today he wants more Europe. He is asking for "principles embedded in EU law" to "support the integrity of the single market." He is calling for treaty change to further entrench the failed euro project - "the stronger Eurozone we want you to build." He is backing more British exposure to Eurozone collapse under the new Capital Markets Union.

Osborne mentioned only one specific change to the status quo: cutting in-work benefits for EU citizens. If this is the sum total of the Government's big reform, it's truly pathetic. It is also absurd. Think about how it would work in your local factory: are we really suggesting different salaries for two people doing the same job because one comes from Walsall and the other from Warsaw?

What this shows is that if you want petty, small-minded parochialism, look no further than the pro-European British elite. For decades, the Establishment has been trying to smear Eurosceptics as Little Englanders. But we are the ones calling for Britain to join the rest of the world. It is the Euro-integrationists who can't shake the mean-spirited xenophobia that underpins the world's biggest protectionist club.

On top of that, we've heard it all before. Everything Osborne said today, Cameron said in his Bloomberg speech two years ago. Think about that for a second: in the past two years, Apple has launched a computer in a watch; Samsung has invented a phone you can roll up like a newspaper; Lockheed Martin claims to have created a nuclear fusion reactor. But all our political leaders can deliver in two years is the same speech calling for virtually no change which they may still never get.

Britain can do better. While we stay locked into EU inertia, the global marketplace is leaving us behind. A whole world of opportunities is out there waiting for us. What are we waiting for?


03 NOV 2015

Don't fall for the fearmongering: Leaving the EU won't mean punitive tariffs

Project Fear has gone into overdrive over the last week. Officials, pundits, and pressure groups – some of whom have curious connections to the EU payroll - have been making out that Brexit is a leap into the unknown, as if Britain has never been an independent, sovereign, trading nation before.

Here's the problem with the scaremongering: it's nonsense.

British Eurosceptics have consistently called for a post-Brexit relationship with the EU based on free trade and friendly cooperation. Given that we buy much more from the EU than we sell, they have every incentive to negotiate a trade agreement with us.

"But what if they don't?" You may ask. "What if they want to raise trade barriers against Britain to teach us a lesson? What happens in the worst case scenario?"

The truth that the BSE campaign won't admit is that the EU couldn't raise punitive barriers against British goods even if it wanted to. Britain post-Brexit would resume her seat on the World Trade Organisation, and WTO rules prevent members raising discriminatory tariffs or non-trade barriers against each other.

In its detailed report on Brexit, Business for Britain calculated the average rate of export tariffs without a new UK-EU deal at 4.4%. That would cost us £7.4 billion per year – almost £4 billion less than our current annual net contribution to the EU.

"Ah," you object. "But they're Eurosceptics. They're biased."

Okay; well listen to what the House of Commons Library researchers said in their report on Brexit this year:

"The maximum tariff would be that applied to the MFN [Most Favoured Nation]. The EU's MFN tariff has generally fallen over time, meaning that in this particular context the 'advantage' of membership has declined. In 2012, the EU's MFN tariff was 2.6%."

2.6%! Just over half the worst-case-scenario rate forecast by Business for Britain. Hardly crippling.

Of course, looking at our trade with Europe only tells a fraction of the story anyway. Europe is a shrinking market - and a rapidly declining destination for British goods. As a proportion of our total exports, we sold less to the EU in 2014 than ever before – despite the EU holding us back in the global marketplace. Post-Brexit, we would have the freedom to negotiate our own trade agreements with non-EU countries: think what that would do for our exports.

Succeeding in the 21st-century global economy means adapting how we do business to new circumstances. We know what we would get if we stay in the EU: Jean-Claude Juncker's managed decline. We also know that leaving will bring us new opportunities – we just don't know quite how many. Let's vote leave, take control - and find out!


02 NOV 2015

Adoption: today the PM is going in the wrong direction

It all sounds so sensible, doesn't it? Today, the Prime Minister said he wants to cut adoption waiting times, and stop children being sent to live with relatives they don't know. "Quite right too", I hear you say.

But there are dangers.

If we accelerate the adoption process, we need to ensure it is still subject to proper scrutiny. Taking children away from their parents by force is a big deal, and we need to get it right. Evidence needs to be tested in an open court and the evidence of experts open to challenge. This does not happen today.

Setting targets means unintended consequences. 70,000 children are in care, and not enough are adopted. Yet setting adoption targets puts pressure on the system to break up families. It means more easy-to-place infants and toddlers being taken off mum, not necessarily more adoptions of challenging teenagers.

The Government is proposing to speed up adoption without due legal process: "We want to see more early placement for adoption, so children move in with their prospective new family sooner, without having to wait for the full process to complete." Might this lead to more cases like that of the Coxes? These cases happen because the process is sped up.

The PM's plan to clamp down on Special Guardianship Orders – designed to place children in care with relatives like Granny and Grandpa as a first resort – will only intensify this outcome. UKIP's adoption policy paper specifically recommends more SGOs as a means to reduce forced family break-up – and make it easier for Granny and Grandpa to adopt.

"Children to be placed with relatives who are most able to look after them, and not distant unsuitable relatives they have never met," says the Downing Street press release announcing this policy shift.

But who is suggesting that children should be sent to live with distant relatives? Social services should consider relatives but reject them if they're not right. It's a fatuous point that Number 10 is making.

"Ministers will look at proposals so that where adoption is the right thing for children, social workers and courts pursue this." Of course, but how do you know that if the evidence cannot be tested?

The PM's plan to restrict the consideration of relatives to those with an existing "strong bond" with the child is not as simple as it sounds. It begs the question how that bond will be defined, and who will define it. Will it be the same social workers who are currently placing children with distant relatives when it is inappropriate? What is to stop them turning down loving grandparents who don't fit the social workers' idea of a "strong bond"?

I believe the PM's plan is profoundly wrong. UKIP has proposed a better way. Our first Parliamentary policy paper – published last week – proposes to open up the family courts to proper scrutiny, and increase the number of Special Guardianship Orders, not cut them. That is the reform the adoption system needs.


01 NOV 2015

The Political Establishment is robbing the young

Two recent stories illustrate how bad the financial prospects for Britain's young have got. First, house prices in the capital are inflated far above income. Second, falling wages since 2008 have primarily affected young working people.

These stories are the tip of the iceberg. There is a deeper issue with state pensions: young people are not paying for their own retirements, but for the pensions of current retirees. 25-year-olds who won't be able to retire at 65 themselves are paying into a welfare system that barely sustains an ageing population today, and will leave nothing for the future. This is a direct transfer of wealth from the young to the old.

Why is this happening?

Because of irresponsible monetary and fiscal policy.

Cheap credit created by the Bank of England – designed to create the illusion of sustainable economic growth – has deliberately inflated house prices above wages. But that wasn't enough for the Chancellor: he chipped in with Help to Buy, which is really Help to Borrow – incentivising young, first-time buyers to take on vast mortgages they cannot afford.

The Chancellor and the Bank of England have colluded to create a new 2007-style subprime bubble, and enrich established homeowners at the expense of young people struggling to get on the housing ladder.

The situation with pensions is even worse. As the Chancellor allows state pension liabilities to become increasingly unsustainable, the Bank is driving private pension funds into insolvency. Seen the Treasury's patronising adverts telling young people to pay into workplace pensions? Osborne and Carney are preventing pension schemes from making any money anyway. The Chancellor is taking with one hand, and taking with the other.

Student protest movements like Occupy can see that young people are losing out, but they can't see quite how dysfunctional the system is. They complain about corporate greed, and blame bankers' bonuses – but then they call for more government. They don't see that it is the Government and the Bank of England that make Too-Big-to-Fail Finance possible. More government means more corporatism and more inequality.

Cameron and Corbyn are both committed to the same thing: more spending and more monetary activism. They are both perpetuating inequality. There is only one route to real social equality: sustainable public finances and sound money.


31 OCT 2015

Blockchains will be big - and make government small

Who do you trust? Politicians? Bankers? Government bureaucrats? Police chiefs? Or, none of the above?

Bitcoin – the digital currency – hit a new high this week. At first glance, it may seem surprising that so many people are willing to invest in a piece of digital code. But there is one very good reason why: they trust it.

As the Economist explains, the remarkable thing about Bitcoin is not the currency itself but the blockchain technology behind it. Blockchain is a public database of transactions which every user can view but no single user controls. One information has been entered in the blockchain, it can never be erased.

Unlike with fiat money, there is no one person or authority in charge of Bitcoin. No central bank can debase Bitcoin at will by printing more. No creative accountant can falsify the books. No government authority needs to supervise it.

Blockchains allow us to have self-organising systems, with no central control.  And no risk of central authority gaming things for its own advantage.  Bad new for politicians and parasites.  Good news for everyone else.

Bitcoin allows people who don't trust banks, the government, or even each other to trade without fear of being ripped off. No wonder the price is rising: the more people lose faith in mainstream institutions, the more sought after Bitcoin will be.

What Bitcoin highlights is how the ruling elite have systematically undermined public confidence in the economy in their efforts to promote it. Bailing out the banks and guaranteeing deposits was meant to shore up confidence; yet all it has achieved is to paper over the cracks of an overleveraged, dysfunctional banking system, and throw good money after bad.

The Political Establishment may not understand this, but people don't trust what they know is dishonest. Propping up systemic malinvestment to try to avoid a correction, and manipulating the price of capital to create the illusion of growth has only intensified the danger of a serious crisis, and made people rightly cautious to trade and invest.

Bitcoin shows the alternative: the way to build economic trust is to keep government out of it.


30 OCT 2015

Poll shows the public sees through the political cartel

Comres's new poll for the IEA should be a wake-up call for the political Establishment. It shows that the British public can see not just that Westminster isn't working, but that the only people who benefit from the status quo are the ruling elite themselves.

The figures are damning: 77% of the British public feel they have little or no influence on the decision-making of their elected government. 81% feel the same about the EU. 75% think that politicians propose legislation to favour special interest groups. Only 8% believe that politicians act in the best interests of the country.

People can see the problems with public services too. 59% believe the welfare state is "not fit for purpose," and 75% agree that it needs substantial reform. 80% think that laws and regulations fail to achieve their goals, and 79% that they often create new problems instead. Most importantly, 65% think the main consideration for public services should be quality, and only 9% think it should be who runs them.

Disaffection with government and politics doesn't come as news – at least not to UKIP. The unpopularity of the big-government, high-tax, open-door-immigration state Labour and the Tories have built is what won UKIP nearly 4 million votes in May, and keeps us climbing in the polls.

The amazing thing is that the Establishment parties are oblivious to public concerns. Look at what's happened in politics just this week: unelected Labour and Lib Dem peers blocking tax credit reform; the PM ditching any pretence of renegotiation of our EU membership and defending the status quo; the Comrades' ludicrous obsession with renationalising the steel industry.

What about our unfunded social security liabilities, which would put Bernie Madoff to shame? What about the EU regulations that are suffocating businesses? What about the regressive green taxes that are impoverishing families and destroying industry?

The public can see that the big issues aren't being dealt with. The political Establishment is blind to it.

Westminster and Whitehall need to wake up. The people won't tolerate failing public services and a government that doesn't address their concerns. I'm pleased that the IEA's new Paragon Initiative will be offering imaginative ideas about how to provide effective public services for the long term. The first step is to break the political cartel.


29 OCT 2015

Want to rein in public spending? Empower Parliament

Governments that spend more than they earn all have one thing in common: they tend to bypass the elected legislature.

What's happening on Capitol Hill at the moment is a case in point. A Democratic President and a pliant Republican Congressional leadership are rushing through a budget deal that will raise spending by over $100 billion and suspend the debt ceiling, so that the Federal Government can borrow as much as it likes. Congressmen who oppose the new deal are being excluded from the legislative process.

But things are poised to change. Congress is about to nominate a new Speaker – Paul Ryan – who won the support of the fiscally sound Freedom Caucus by promising to change the legislative process. If he is true to his word, major legislation will no longer be imposed top-down by a cosy cartel of party leaders but will instead be generated bottom-up by legislative committees. Representatives elected on a popular mandate to sort out the public finances will be empowered to block it.

British supporters of fiscal sanity should take note. One of the reasons Britain can't balance the books is that backbench MPs have no input into the budget. George Osborne pretends he can cut spending by fiat, but he doesn't even follow his own rules – just like Gordon Brown before him.

We will never rein in public spending if we keep giving the Chancellor free rein over our money. Changing Parliamentary procedures might seem arcane. But giving Commons committees and backbenchers real input and scrutiny over the budget – like we had until the 1930s - would go a long way toward restoring fiscal responsibility.

Be under no illusion: our massive fiscal deficit is a direct result of our massive democratic deficit. The vast expansion of the State – on both sides of the pond – has been made possible by the centralisation of power in a tiny, self-serving elite. The chattering classes calling the Freedom Caucus "extremists," and the Corbynista Comrades relying on unelected peers to block spending cuts are part of the problem. They are actively working to deny the taxpaying people control over their own money, and keep power confined to the crony cartel.

UKIP is different. Our councillors across Britain already govern by backbench committee rather than centralised cabinet – and are creating real, functional bipartisanship in the process. Congress is about to follow suit. Why can't Parliament?


28 OCT 2015

The CPS needs to stop prosecuting its ridiculous agenda, and start prosecuting criminals

Back to the Future II was right about 2015. We may not have all the high-tech gadgets it predicted, but we do have innovations beyond the wildest imaginations of even Hollywood executives 30 years ago – from smart phones to 3D printers. In fact, the film only got one thing wrong: the 21st-century, technocratic State won't let us use them.

If Marty McFly tried to use his hoverboard in London today, he would be stopped by the police. According to the Crown Prosecution Service, "self-balancing scooters" are illegal to ride anywhere in public. In fact, the CPS deems hoverboarding on the pavement "an offence under Section 72 of the Highway Act 1835" – a law which predates the invention of the bicycle.

As Boris Johnson says, banning hoverboards while permitting mobility scooters is absurd. In fact, so the Mayor tells us, this ban is so preposterous that even TfL "experts" – no strangers to banning new technology – recognise it.

But the real issue is not with the ban itself but the people issuing it. In 1835, traffic law was made by elected legislators in Parliament. How did we end up giving the power to make our laws to unelected bureaucrats in an unaccountable government agency?

The CPS was founded in 1986 with one purpose: to bring criminals to justice. In my constituency, it's doing a pretty shoddy job – and it's no different elsewhere. Research by Policy Exchange in 2012 found that the CPS won barely half of its prosecutions in court, yet refused to bring charges against actual criminals – like the 2011 rioters – for fear of criminalising them!

Instead of applying the law, the CPS consistently spends its time trying to make it.

Earlier this year, the CPS blocked a private prosecution against gender abortion on the grounds that it "wasn't in the public interest." Since when does a quangocrat cartel speak for the public?

Six years ago, CPS head Keir Starmer – now a left-wing Labour MP – tried to change the law on assisted suicide, despite Parliament explicitly refusing to do so. At least he ultimately stood for election to push his agenda.

There is only one way to have an accountable, efficient public prosecution service – and that is to elect local public prosecutors.

There is also only one way for the law to reflect the public interest – and that is for elected lawmakers in Parliament to legislate. We knew that in 1835. It's about time we went back to the future.


27 OCT 2015

UKIP PRU launches first policy paper: "Opening up the family courts"

This morning, I joined UKIP Deputy Chairman Suzanne Evans and former Lib Dem MP John Hemming to launch the UKIP Parliamentary Resource Unit's first policy paper, aimed at ending the injustice of forced adoptions.

Too many children are removed from their birth parents by the State without due cause – as a result of secret proceedings in the family courts. We need public scrutiny of forced adoptions to stop the State breaking up families unfairly, and hold those responsible to account.

Here are our proposals to introduce transparency and end the forced adoption scandal:


1. Promote more extensive use of Special Guardianship Orders, particularly where a child is made a ward of an extended family member, such as a grandparent.

2. Open placement and adoption order proceedings to the media on the same basis as other family law proceedings.

3. Introduce a presumption to allow reporting of Family Court proceedings on an anonymised basis (e.g. Child A, the mother of Child A).

4. Mandate publication of all judgments (those from district judges on application and subject to a fee), except where the presiding judge seeks and obtains a contrary order from the President of the Family Division.

5. Mandate that all local authority witnesses, including social workers as well as expert witnesses, be identified by name and position(s) held.

6. Require expert witnesses to list previous court cases in which they have given evidence, on application and subject to administrative costs.

7. Publish, on an anonymised basis, all statements of case, skeleton arguments, case summaries and other documents prepared and exchanged by the advocates in a case.

8. Allow media access to expert reports on an anonymised basis, with reporting restrictions imposed only in exceptional circumstances.

9. Allow unrestricted access to expert reports to academics for peer review on the condition that any research papers written as to the quality of reports are anonymised.


Read the full paper here!


27 OCT 2015

Portugal's EU Coup

Earlier this month, the Portuguese people voted to kick the government out. The centre-right, pro-Euro-austerity coalition lost its absolute majority in parliament. The Socialist opposition agreed to form a majority coalition with radical left-wing parties, on a democratic mandate to reject the austerity measures imposed by the EU and the IMF. But last week the Portuguese President promised to do everything in his power to prevent the elected majority taking office.

Why is he overruling the people? Because the EU doesn't like their choice. "Never in 40 years of democracy," the President said, "have the governments in Portugal relied on the support of anti-European political forces."

Sound familiar? It's the classic EU approach to democracy. If the people give the answer you don't want, ignore the people. Portugal was the backdrop for the EU's last undemocratic coup, when the Lisbon Treaty brought in the EU constitution rejected in referenda by the peoples of Europe. Eight years on, the EU is denying democracy in Lisbon again.

But the fact that this latest EU coup is happening in Portugal is especially distressing – and not just because she is the UK's oldest ally. Portugal joined the EU only fifteen years after the end of Salazar's dictatorship, on the promise that the European project would help consolidate democracy. Now we know how hollow that promise was.

Don't get me wrong: I'm no fan of Communists in government either. No ideology has been more destructive over the past century. And the idea that governments can ignore fiscal reality and spend money they don't have is madness. But thwarting the democratic will of the people isn't the solution to the rise of left-wing radicalism; it's the cause.

Across Europe, Eurosceptic parties are gaining support as people realise that they are being ruled by a new oligarchy. The recent elections in Poland and Portugal have produced polar opposite results, but they have one thing in common: both reject the federalist agenda of Europe's political Establishment.

Doubt what's happening in Portugal is an Establishment stitch-up? Portugal's current pro-EU president – Anibal Cacavo Silva – was the prime minister who took the country into the EEC thirty years ago. One of his successors as PM – Jose Manuel Barroso – later became President of the European Commission. Portugal's political class has long relied on Brussels as its core constituency.

The Euro Establishment thinks it can continue to rule the nation states of Europe like fiefdoms. It is blind to the lessons of history. Reactionary, centralised, undemocratic regimes in Europe met with popular revolts in 1789, 1830, 1848, and 1917. Britain avoided this fate by recognising that the status quo was untenable, and liberalising. Yet the EU thinks it can get away with not only ignoring the people, but centralising even more.

We need a new model for Europe - based on peace, friendship, and free trade between independent nation states. We need to end neo-oligarchic government from Brussels. We need to vote leave, and take control.


26 OCT 2015

Where does UKIP stand on tax credit reform?

I'm supporting Frank Field's proposals on tax credit reform. Why?

Firstly, because Frank's proposals mean that we still get the changes to the tax credit system that we need.

Tax credits were introduced as a way of topping up the income of those on low pay. But it has ended up as an excuse for employers to pay people low wages – in the knowledge public money will be used to top it up. What started as a way of trying to help those on low incomes has become a system of corporate welfare. Big business gets the taxpayer to subsidise their payroll.

I suspect one of the reasons Frank has come up with a sensible middle way suggestion on the issue of tax credit reform is precisely because Frank knows that you cannot talk about controlling immigration and not, at the same time, also look at the issue of in work benefits.

If there is one issue UKIP has campaigned on consistently it is immigration. UKIP cannot ignore the impact that tax credits have had on drawing labour in from outside the UK. To reduce immigration, yes we need an Australian-type points-based system. Yes, we need to properly control our borders. But we also need to accept the need to reform the in-work benefits system that currently acts as a subsidy for labour migration.

George Osborne does not emerge from these tax credit reforms with his reputation enhanced. Just like over Child Benefits in 2013, the Chancellor has introduced a change without thinking through its consequences.

On that occasion, Mr Osborne woke up to the fact that his measures would mean a cliff edge for some people, and allowed what is known as a taper, so that the measure would take effect more gently.

With his tax measures due to kick in in one swoop next year, something similar is now needed to phase in the changes – preferably as the Living Wage rises and the labour market generates higher wages.

As happened with Child Benefits, the House of Commons now needs to step in and correct the minister's mistake. But at the same time ensure that welfare reform goes ahead.

"Why not just oppose the government?" I was recently asked by a journalist. "You could embarrass them and hit them hard."

This is about doing the right thing, not scoring points. It is fundamentally wrong that we subsidise low wages and thereby keep wages low.

It's also bad politics. There was once a third party in this country that tried to be all things to all people. They were called the Liberal Democrats, and they showed what happens you ditch any pretence at principle and do whatever you think makes you look good. You end up looking like Nick Clegg.


23 OCT 2015

Never mind the leaders: Leave has drawn level!

/>The talk about the latest Brexit poll has focused on the impact of the party leaders. But the real story is how narrow the gap now is – and which way the trend is moving.

 

Leave is now neck and neck with Remain – despite being several points behind just two months ago. It seems like our campaign's optimistic belief in Britain's global future is winning people over – particularly in light of the downbeat defeatism served up by the Inners.

What is remarkable about the most recent poll is actually how little difference the leaders' opinions make. But then why should anyone be surprised? People are sick of the political cartel – they no longer trust elites in Westminster and Whitehall to make their decisions for them. Besides, the point of the referendum is that the people decide.

The whole idea of a referendum is anti-politics. That's why the political Establishment spent so many years trying to block it. That's why the Establishment parties are all campaigning to keep decision-making confined to a remote elite in Brussels, as far away from the people as possible. That's why we are campaigning for the British people to vote leave and take back control.

The really interesting statistic in all the polls is that 20% of people surveyed have yet to make up their minds. This is a reminder that, for all the discussion about national identity and our place in the world, many people see the referendum as a pragmatic question about how a Brexit will affect their daily lives.

Those of us backing Leave have to answer practical concerns with practical arguments. We need to keep making the case that when it comes to jobs, trade, and business, the EU is only holding us back. We need to highlight the technological forces that are bringing the world closer to us, and leaving Europe behind.

One thing is for sure: the referendum will be a close fight – and we can win!


22 OCT 2015

Memo to Public Health England: Cutting the fat begins at home

"In the case of nutrition and health, just as in the case of education, the gentleman in Whitehall really does know better what is good for people than the people know themselves." Or so presumed Fabian elitist Douglas Jay in his 1947 manifesto The Socialist State.

Today, as people used to making consumer choices in every aspect of our lives, this view sounds absurd. What is amazing is that our professional bureaucrats still believe it.

Alison Tedstone is one such – in fact, one of 5,000 at Public Health England. People are too fat for her liking, she told us yesterday. So she wants to tax, legislate, and above all patronise us to the weight she considers acceptable.

She demands a duty on sugar, a ban on "supersized" portion sizes, and regulation of cartoon characters in advertising - starting with public enemy number one: the Coco Pops monkey. "Things like those Coco Pop monkeys," she informed the Commons Health Select Committee, "do engage children and affect food preference and choice."

Don't adjust your sets: this is not 1947, when Britain still had food rationing. Dr. Tedstone seriously thinks people will tolerate nanny-state planning by the gentleman in Whitehall today. She really believes cartoon characters are a national priority. She actually expects taxpayers to keep paying her to patronise them.

At a time when the demand for healthcare is stretching NHS budgets to breaking point, we are paying over £300 million a year to be lectured by Public Health England. When hospitals are in financial crisis, we are allowing PHE to spend £48 million on infantilising "health marketing" campaigns fronted by B-list celebrities. When junior doctors are facing pay cuts, PHE's chief executive, Duncan Selbie, is making over £285,000 annually.

I suspect that people don't want to be lectured on obesity by well-fed technocrats living off the fat of the land. They don't need to be told to trim the excess by the pointless parasites of the rent-seeking class. After seventy years of statism, they have learnt the hard way what happens when they blindly trust the experts – on everything from immigration to interest rates. That's why so many don't trust them anymore.

On the other hand, I know that people do want efficient healthcare. Taxpayers do want their money spent properly.

If we really want to improve health outcomes - if we really want to cut the fat – then forget the Coco Pops monkey. Public Health England is the place to start.


21 OCT 2015

Business for Brexit

We are constantly told by the EU-funded CBI that business wants Britain to remain in the EU. In fact, many big British companies – facing crippling EU regulation and tariffs – are increasingly iffy about it.

I visited one such company – Tate & Lyle - earlier this week. T&L's refinery has been processing cane sugar since 1878. It is one of the largest industrial employers left in London. The company has survived depression, world wars to become the largest cane refiners in Europe. Yet now the EU threatens to shut T&L down.

Why? Because nineteen EU member states produce beet sugar. So the EU openly rigs the sugar market against cane.

Since 2009, the EU has restricted cane refiners to importingraw sugar cane from 5% of the world market. EU import duties for sugar cane from the other 95% are staggering: €339 per tonne. Even within the accessible 5%, duties and quotas still apply.

Unlike cane, the EU is progressively deregulating beet sugar. From October 2017, there will be no quotas or levies on sugar beet production – with prices set to fall by 15%. But beet producers – used to receiving guaranteed prices under the quota – will be subsidised to counteract any price drop. Cane refiners, meanwhile, will be driven out of business.

The conspiracy against sugar cane is discrimination not just against T&L but against the UK. The single market that the Peter Mandelsons tell us is essential for Britain to wield influence as a trading power is, in fact, systematically undermining British trade and British businesses on the whims of bureaucrats and lobbyists. This isn't a free market, it's protectionism.

Brussels masquerades as seat of high minded internationalism. In reality it's home of grubby, dishonest corporate fixes. Markets and the rules that govern them are systematically rigged. To help rig them are an army of lobbyists, which is why lobbying is one of Europe's few growth industries.

The EU's cane tariffs have already cut jobs and production for T&L. Since 2009, T&L's annual sugar output has fallen from 1.1 million tonnes to 600,000. It could well be unable to survive after 2017.

Curiously, 2017 is also likely to be the year of the EU referendum. The corporatist cartel will keep telling us that business wants to stay in. The truth is that the only way to save businesses like Tate & Lyle is to vote Leave.


20 OCT 2015

The problem isn't China's steel-dumping. It's our failed energy policy.

The British steel industry is in crisis. As the UK currently faces an inflow of Chinese steel, many are pointing the finger at China. But the real problem isn't Chinese policy. It's ours.

British steel producers have been struggling to compete in global markets for years: the value of the UK steel industry has declined by 42% since 1990. And one of the main things holding the industry back is the Government's energy policy.

For an energy intensive industry like steel production, raising the price of energy has an enormous impact on the cost of production. Yet – in their quixotic quest to cut carbon emissions - this is precisely what successive Governments have done.

The Government's green obsession costs energy consumers billions of pounds a year. Last year, we paid a record £46 billion in green taxes. Ed Miliband's 2008 Climate Change Act alone intentionally raises the cost of energy for British consumers by an average of £18 billion every year.

Green taxes are regressive. They harm everyone, but hurt the poorest most of all. As we approach winter, they will be the direct cause of many people being unable to heat their homes.

But industrial producers suffer most of all. Because of green taxes and regulation, industrial electricity prices in Britain today are over 50% higher than those in other major EU economies.

To understand the impact of energy policy, just consider how cheap energy should be. Thanks to American shale, wholesale energy prices should be falling in the UK – like they are in the US. Right now, British industry has a plentiful and cheap source of energy readily available, but can't make use of it – all because of green legislation. The Government has simply broken the energy market.

Yet – astonishingly – the Government can't even see the problem. When I joined UKIP last year, the first backbench debate I triggered was on energy policy. I quoted DECC's own figures to show that the State was systematically driving up energy prices by requiring energy producers to increase the proportion of electricity they generate from renewables. But the Minister responsible - contradicting his own department - told the House that wholesale energy prices are "beyond the control of any government."

We need a government that will set our energy market free. Government price-fixing is not just costing jobs in industry, but the lives of pensioners who can no longer afford to pay their heating bills. But the Establishment parties have all colluded with Big Green to rig the energy market against the interests of the people.

If we want to break the energy cartel, we need to break the political cartel first.


20 OCT 2015

The GDP Smokescreen

What does it mean to create wealth? Politicians like to talk about "growing the economy," using the metric of increases in gross domestic product (GDP). But – as Liam Fox highlighted yesterday - GDP doesn't tell the real story.

The GDP metric seriously misrepresents the economic value of government spending. Whereas the contribution of a business is assessed in terms of what it sells – by the value of what consumers have purchased from it. But the Government's contribution just based on what it spends – as if it is another consumer, not a producer.

So if the State spends more on wages – even if the staff do no work and produce no output - it has increased its contribution to GDP. If the State spends taxpayers' money on planes that don't fly, guns that don't fire, or tanks that don't exist, all of its pointless outlay counts towards GDP. Who really thinks that is economically valuable?

Moreover, Government spending is not like other consumption. The Government can only spend money that it either takes out of the people's pockets through taxation, or borrows for the people to pay back – at exorbitant interest – later on. The more the Government spends, the less individuals, families, and businesses can spend.

The Government doesn't put wealth into the economy. It takes wealth out of the economy. Yet the GDP metric allows governments to create the illusion of economic growth simply by increasing spending.

A better metric for economic growth is what Liam Fox calls gross private product (GPP): total GDP minus government spending. Looking only at private spending and investment shifts the focus to the productive sector of the economy.

For many years preceding the crash in 2007, our GDP grew while our GPP shrunk. What this shows is that the economy was not really growing during this period, whatever Gordon Brown was telling us at the time.

In fact, not only was the productive sector of the economy contracting but the unproductive sector of the economy – i.e. Government – was expanding. The financing of Government was becoming more and more unsustainable. Ever wondered how we ended up with a public sector debt crisis? That's how.

It is only by growing the productive part of our economy – the private sector – that we can both increase our prosperity and fund our essential public services. This Government pays lip service to real growth and sustainable public spending, but is still borrowing at unsustainable levels while campaigning to stay in the suffocating EU regulatory system that is holding British business back.

Only UKIP will set Britain free.


19 OCT 2015

Sound Money

Sound money. Now that's a term you might not have heard for a while. That's because we've not had it for many years.

Hats off to Liam Fox for putting the subject of how we manage our money on to the political agenda with a talk at the Institute of Economic Affairs.

For years, the Osbrown economic orthodoxy has engaged in a policy of print-money-and-pray.

Facing a fall in the economy's output? Throw lots of cheap credit and hope people start buying stuff. Tank the banks? Don't worry, hose them with money that you conjured out of thin air, and hope they start lending.

To every economic problem the Osbrown consensus has been easy money.

"But" I hear you say "those central bankers must have been doing okay. There's been no inflation"

Really? I'd say there has been the most enormous inflation of asset prices. Houses, shares and other assets classes have rocketed in value.

The reason why consumer goods have not shot up in price has little to do with central bankers. The addition of millions of extra workers to the globalised economy in China, Eastern Europe and elsewhere has kept consumer good prices down.

The single biggest driver of income inequality in Britain today is a monetary regime that drives up the value of the assets of the haves, yet does little to secure the economic security of the have nots.

For too long all establishment partied in Westminster went along with the Osbrown insanity. Today I hope they are starting to consider the alternatives.

I set out my post Osbrown ideas in this paper.


16 OCT 2015

Devolution Powerhouse

The second reading of the Cities and Local Government Bill in the Commons this week brought communities one step closer to gaining control over their public services. UKIP strongly advocates empowering communities rather remote officials in Whitehall, which is why I was pleased to support this bill in the Commons. The question is, does the Treasury feel the same?

The impact that this new legislation stands to make really is significant. By removing restrictions on the composition of combined local authorities, expanding eligibility for and functions of elected mayors, and – crucially – allowing powers currently exercised by national public bodies to be transferred to local authorities, the Bill would give local communities much greater power and scrutiny over their public services.

So is the future for devolution bright?

Not exactly. While Greg Clark is working to devolve power, George Osborne – with his "Northern Powerhouse" agenda – is pushing in the other direction. Instead of bottom-up government, allowing the people who live and work in northern cities to decide what kind of infrastructure and investment is right for them, the Chancellor is imposing top-down plans devised hundreds of miles away in London.

For decades, every government and every governing party – Conservative, Labour, and Lib Dem - has paid lip-service to devolution while doing the opposite. The Chancellor's northern vanity project shows he is no different. Don't be fooled by the "powerhouse" rhetoric: the prospect of picking winners from the Treasury empowers no one but George Osborne.

Centralising power and money in Westminster and Whitehall elites is not only undemocratic but inefficient. Economic planning by technocratic elites only ever leads to malinvestment. Real growth in the North and across the UK will only come from economic democracy: allowing individuals to decide where and how to invest their money, liberating businesses from burdensome regulation, and giving local communities control over local economies.

The Establishment parties may never support real devolution. UKIP will.


15 OCT 2015

What could we do with our money if we did not send it to Brussels?

The UK currently sends £350 million per week to Brussels. Does that make you or your family better off?

Every penny we send to Brussels is money we can't spend on our public services. Just think what one week's worth of EU fees could pay for:

· A year's salary for over 950 more GPs,

· ...and 2,300 new nurses

· Plus lifesaving breast cancer drugs – blocked by NICE over cost - for 500 patients

· 7 new free schools

· ..along with annual wages for over 2,200 new teachers

· Upgrading East Anglian rail lines and building a new rail terminal in East London or expanding Liverpool Street station

· And saving 15 police stations and 190 police jobs in Essex

Or we could reduce borrowing by £18 billion per year, and immediately cut the deficit by 20%.

Alternatively, we could let the EU spend our money on what it wants. £350 million almost pays off the UK's annual bill for the EU's corporate PR. Or goes towards essential projects like lifts to nowhere, airports for ghosts, and homeopathy for farm animals.

Don't expect the Prime Minister to "renegotiate" our membership fees either. This is the man who last month paid a £1.7 billion bill to Brussels that he described as "appalling". In fact, as we cut our public spending across the board this year, our EU contributions are projected to rise. This Government really believes that taxpayers' money is better spent on Brussels than Britain.

The only people better off from Britain's EU membership are the Eurocrat elites collecting our cheques. The EU is not only holding us back from growing our economic links with the rest of the world but wasting public money that is desperately needed at home.

It's time for British taxpayers to take back control over their money. We're better off out.


14 OCT 2015

Deficit-Denying Diane

Labour is not having a good time. Having lost their reputation for economic competence when they tanked that banks in 2006-07, Labour is still in denial mode.

It was the world economy's fault, they claim. That chronic budget deficit that Gordon Brown ran up? It was investment, they insist.

The denial turned a bit comical this week when Diane Abbott was sent in to defend Labour's u-turn on the Fiscal Charter.

Asked why John McDonnell, Labour economic spokesman, is now against a Charter he said he supported only two weeks ago, Diane said Labour had always been consistently Keynesian.

If this is consistent Keynesianism, it would be news to John Maynard Keynes.

Keynes argued that public spending should be counter-cyclical, not fiscally incontinent. Governments should run surpluses during economic booms and deficits during busts. Which is, in fact, precisely what the Fiscal Charter says.

Rejecting the Fiscal Charter is not remotely Keynesian; on the contrary, it is a repudiation of one of Keynes's core principles.

UKIP supports government living within its means. I have voted for cuts to public spending. I am backing the Fiscal Charter too, because it is right to support the principle of balanced budgets.Labour's commitment to ever-expanding government borrowing is not just irresponsible but deeply immoral. How can it possibly be fair or right to leave for us to spend money now and leave our children to pay for it?

Of course, having doubled the national debt and borrowed throughout a boom, the Conservative Government is no closer to economic credibility than Labour. Britain is currently running a higher budget deficit than almost every other country in Europe – even Greece is borrowing less than we are.

I agree with George Osborne that borrowing forever is a "threat to the economic security of working people." When will he put his own principles into practice?


12 OCT 2015

Wrong then, wrong now

The launch of the Remain campaign this morning was a comeback reunion for the discredited Euro-lobbyists of the past. The same people who told us we had to join the Euro – Peter Mandelson, Ken Clarke, Roland Rudd, Martin Sorrell – are now telling us we have to stay in the EU. Yet it isn't just the same people on show, but the same failed arguments.

The campaign launch this morning confirmed that the Remain will be based on the same bankrupt ideas that the Europhiles used to advocate the UK entering the disastrous single currency.

Stuart Rose warns that leaving the EU would "risk our prosperity, threaten our security, and undermine our standing in the world."

"Britain on its own would resume the decline which continued through most of the 20th century," writes Ken Clarke.

Leaving Europe would make us "notionally independent" but "less influential" says Peter Mandelson.

"Britain would lose its influence within Europe if it left," protests Martin Sorrell.

"Brexit is economic madness," according to Roland Rudd.

Sound familiar?

Fifteen years ago, they said the same thing about being about the Euro.

"Until we come off the fence over joining the Euro, we will slip backwards in Europe," Peter Mandelson told us then.

"Business leaders appreciate the success of the Euro," agreed Roland Rudd.

"Public opinion is already changing as people can see the success of the single currency," claimed Ken Clarke.

"If the Government rules out membership of the Euro, it will be damaging for British-based business," warned Martin Sorrell.

Fifteen years after they told us we couldn't survive outside the Euro, the same corporatist cronies are back telling us we can't survive outside the EU. The battle lines for the referendum have been drawn: ex-ministers and corporate lobbyists vs. entrepreneurs and the people.

The polls show how closely fought this campaign will be. But wouldn't it be wonderful to defeat the Europhiles again, and be freed from the patronising propaganda of this self-serving elite?


09 OCT 2015

VoteLeave launched!

Watch my Sky News interview on the new VoteLeave campaign:


09 OCT 2015

Inequality? It's a consequence of government policy, Mr Cameron

"I want us to end discrimination and finish the fight for real equality in our country today," David Cameron said yesterday. Isn't it wonderful to live in a country that is more tolerant and open than ever before?

But what did the Prime Minister mean by "real equality"?

The Prime Minister spoke about tackling wealth inequality, yet his record so far is hardly promising. During his five years in Downing Street, price inflation has outstripped wages, raising the cost of living for the poorest. House prices have rocketed, preventing young people from buying a home. The single biggest driver of economic inequality in Britain today is a monetary policy that drives up the value of those with assets, and leaves those without behind.

This is happening as a direct consequence of the government's fiscal and monetary policy. Artificially low interest rates have stoked asset price inflation, while £375 billion of quantitative easing has pumped public money into failed banks – debasing the currency, and transferring wealth from the poor to the rich. At the same time, the Chancellor has doubled the national debt, unfairly leaving the next generation to foot the bill for his overspending.

Without monetary reform, the next five years will be no different from the last. House and stock prices will keep rising, benefitting those who already own assets, and freezing out those who don't. Productivity – the real engine of prosperity – will continue to stagnate. Unsustainable, debt-fuelled economic growth will continue enriching the elite at the expense of the majority. As long as credit stays cheap, Cameron's words will be cheap too.

Subsidies for certain sectors, and crony corporatism, have helped create vested interests and rent seekers. If you think that the Private Finance Initiative helped enrich various corporate interests with a claim on future tax revenue, wait until you see what the new Infrastructure Commission gets up to. Lobbyists are already rubbing their hands with glee.

Greater equality means tackling head on the cosy cartels that have rigged the corporate banking sector, the energy market and much else. We need a return to sound money and balanced budgets. And we need to break open the greatest cartel of them all – the political cartel in Westminster which has rigged our politics like the bankers rigged Libor.


08 OCT 2015

Home-owning democracy?

It is deeply worrying that so many young people cannot afford to buy a home. We desperately need a Government that addresses the gap between house prices and wages. Unfortunately this Government is doing the opposite.

The basic reason houses are unaffordable for so many young people is that house prices have risen inexorably while wages have stagnated. This is the result of years of artificially cheap credit: by setting negative interest rates in a bid to create the illusion of economic growth, the Bank of England has incentivised borrowing and inflated asset prices.

But the Chancellor is to blame too. He has not only backed the Bank's monetary activism, but also added his own cheap credit through Help to Buy. Encouraging more mortgage lending without building any more houses can only ever have one consequence: price inflation. Far from making houses more affordable for first-time buyers, Help to Buy has only served to place them further out of reach.

Nor is that the only policy pushing up house prices. The Government promises to deliver 200,000 homes a year to account for population growth. But even it met that target, the new homes wouldn't even cover population growth just from net immigration, which currently stands at over 300,000 per year. As long as immigration outstrips housebuilding, prices must continue to rise – and we can't control immigration while we remain in the EU.

At the same time, planning regulations prevent desirable housing development. Regulations on building design produce regimented, identikit houses and flats that people don't want to live in. New developments are imposed on local communities from the top down, without concern for the impact on local infrastructure and services.

Affordable housing requires more sound money and less regulation. We need to liberalise design – encouraging innovative construction that produces not just houses but homes. We need to localise planning, enabling local councils to choose where to build and keep the resulting tax revenue. We need to retake control of our borders, so that housebuilding can keep pace with sustainable population growth.

Above all, we need a Government that is actually serious about tackling our country's enormous debt burden.


07 OCT 2015

Influence or outcomes?

"I have no romantic attachment to the European Union," David Cameron claimed today. "I'm only interested in two things: Britain's prosperity and Britain's influence."

Sounds sensible, doesn't it?

When ministers talk about wielding influence in Europe, it sounds as if they mean the attainment of defined objectives. In reality it means something rather different. Influence really means the ability to lobby the EU machine, rather than necessarily get the things we want.

Take for example the PM's claim to be the driving force behind the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. If Britain really wanted free trade with the United States, we could have it – if we had control over our own trade policy.

But we don't. Europe decides for us. So we are left lobbying Brussels to get the kind of deal that we want – and when it kind of begins to get us where we want to be, we claim we have influence.

Doing trade deals as part of the EU means, of course, that the deal making takes much longer. Not only do we have to try to square the interests of Italian shoemakers or Spanish textile companies. By doing a Single Market type trade deal with the US, we end up not actually striking a free trade agreement at all, but negotiating a permission-based trade deal.

Firms in the UK won't be able to produce and sell goods freely to America – and vice versa. Firms will only be able to produce and sell if they do so in compliance with standardised regulations drawn up at the behest of lobbyists.

Influence? I can see why lobbyists might like it, but not the rest of us.

Instead of seeking influence over how we are governed, it would be nice to have a Prime Minister who actually governed.


05 OCT 2015

The new capitalism? It's even more capitalist and free market

City AM recently reported that the value of equity crowdfunding has doubled in the last year, rising to £146 million in 2015. "The growth of this new form of finance has been so strong," the paper says, "that researchers have struggled to catch up with the speed with which the entrepreneurial finance market is changing."

This is good news not just for entrepreneurs, but for all of us.

Crowdfunding is revolutionary because it democratises investment. It takes away the middleman – allowing people to invest without going through a broker. It widens access to capital for entrepreneurs – allowing start-ups to reach people beyond the confines of the City. It gives ordinary people – rather than billionaires – the opportunity to be venture capitalists.

In a financial system warped by malinvestment, crowdfunding is a welcome antidote. Technology is transforming our way of life, increasing productivity and prosperity. Of course, high-tech is not immune from the misallocation of resources – as the DotCom crash showed – but it beats inflating asset bubbles. Lowering the cost of living demands more investment in innovation, and less money pumped into the housing market.

Most importantly, crowdfunding shows that finance is more than the banking system as we know it. It gives the lie to the banks that claim that the world cannot exist without them, but can no longer survive without taxpayer subsidy. In bypassing traditional funding streams, entrepreneurs are proving that there is are other ways to do investment. We should not be afraid of abandoning a model that has failed.

To fixing our broken banking system, we need to allow people to choose where to put their money. For too long we have undemocratically subcontracted that choice to central bankers and governments, and allowed elites to get rich at the expense of the people. This is the root of social inequality today.

Crowdfunding shows market capitalism as it should be: economic democracy. Bring on the free-market financial revolution.....


02 OCT 2015

Britain's Corporatist Foreign Policy

"For Osborne, foreign policy is strictly business," complained the BBC, following the Chancellor's trip to China. "Economics trumps everything else, be that old alliances or any notion of a universalist, ethical foreign policy."

But is Britain's foreign policy actually good for British businesses and consumers?

Osborne's deals with China's dirigiste bureaucrats are a classic example of government failure in business: UK taxpayer subsidies to foreign companies that will raise energy prices for British consumers.

But the Chancellor's vision of foreign policy is hardly new. In fact, he is staying true to a tried, failed, but stubbornly retained British foreign-policy tradition that is not pro-business, but pro-corporatism.

We live in a global economy, and have done for hundreds of years. Trade between people thousands of miles apart –whether following the Silk Road, the Via Maris, or the Spice Route – has been happening for millennia without any need for government intervention.

In fact, when governments have intervened in international trade, it has usually been to restrict it: by imposing tariffs to protect vested interests and enrich political elites at the expense of consumers. Centuries of benefits from free trade have done nothing to dampen government enthusiasm for opposing it. Just look at British government support for the world's biggest protectionist club.

The Foreign Office claims to promote trade. But its trade missions and delegations are actually designed to stitch up contracts between Big Business and foreign governments, and freeze out real competition. The fact that the FCO focuses on kowtowing to authoritarian regimes should come as no surprise. From Saudi Arabia to Iran to China, it is the countries where trade is the co-opted the most by political elites that provide the biggest opportunities for cosy backroom deals.

This isn't international trade; it's international cronyism, or neo-mercantilism.

Trade must be a key part of any country's foreign policy. UK foreign policy should aim at the very least to secure our borders and allow our goods access to foreign ports. Recent weeks have proved that this Government can't even manage that.

The best trade policy should mean getting government out of the way.


01 OCT 2015

UKIP Conference: My speech in full

Here is the full text of my speech in Doncaster last week:


"I stood on this spot exactly a year ago. I had just joined UKIP, and called a by-election.

Looking around, I see lots of familiar faces. People who came to help in that by-election. Activists who campaigned in the General Election.

So I wanted to start by saying "thank you." Thank you for all that you did – in the by-election and afterwards. I could not have done it without you.

It wasn't my victory. It was yours. It was UKIP's victory.

We could not have got a staggering four million votes at the last General Election without your hard work.

All that campaigning can be quite an experience. Knocking on all those doors, you get to see human nature in all its rich tapestry.

Let me tell you about this one day. I was out campaigning in one of the smarter parts of my constituency. Lots of large Victorian houses. Wide lawns. Long gravel drives.

I walked up one of those gravel drives to the door of this big house. The front door, I noticed, was slightly open. I could hear the sound of music inside.

I knocked and waited. I knocked again and waited.

Eventually this hear bobbed around. A young lad – in his teens – peering up at me from around the door.

He was wearing, I noticed, what appeared to be a smoking jacket – several sizes too big, the sleeves rolled up.

Between his little fingers I could see what looked like a small cigar. In his other hand, he held what looked to me suspiciously like a glass of brandy.

"Are mum and dad at home?" I asked.

"Does it ruddy look as if they're at home?" He replied.

"What's it like being UKIP's only MP?" I'm often asked.

I might be UKIP's only MP, but being an MP for UKIP is much more fun than it was being a Conservative.

For a start, meetings of the Parliamentary party are a lot shorter. There tends to be unanimity. Mostly.

But I wish more of us were there in the Chamber.

It can be immensely frustrating.

Sitting there on the green benches, I find myself surrounded by a sea of Scottish Nationalist MPs.

We got three times more votes than they got, yet there are fifty something of them, and only one UKIP MP. How can that be fair?

We got more votes than the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, the Ulster Unionists, and the Green Party combined.

I know how unfair our political system is in this country. I sit next to it every day.

Politics is a cartel. The rules have been rigged to remove the threat of choice and competition to insiders.

There is a mood of real restlessness out there amongst the voters. Almost four million voted for us. Tens of thousands of comrades voted to make Comrade Corbyn Labour leader.

Anger at the injustices of the corporatist economy are simmering away not far below the surface.

There is a mood of resentment directly towards the political cartel in Westminster.

Europhiles will smear and jeer. They claim that UKIP is a rejection of the modern world. No, we're not. Far from rejecting modernity, modernity has made the emergence of UKIP as the third force in British politics possible.

Instead of implying that there is something wrong with voters for feeling disaffected, the question is what is wrong with our political system.

Historically, the established parties in this country represented different sectional interests. Labour, as the name suggested, once represented the interests of organised labour. The Conservatives once represented the interests of business.

Today, the sectional interest those two parties most clearly represent is that of career politicians.

Far from ensuring voters get a choice, the cartel parties diminish voter choice.

They select the same kind of candidates, drawn from the same narrow background, with the same sort of outlook.

Too many trod the same path from special adviser to safe seat. From backbench toadying to front-bench blandness. MPs becoming MPs because they worked in the offices of MPs. It's a cosy club.

Of course, there are good people in all parties. I know lots of people on both sides of the House full of good intentions.

But if you only ever follow the whips through the voting lobbies, how can you know that you are doing the right thing?

Westminster encourages group think.

And it's group think that has run this country for too long... and run us into the ground.

It was group think about banking and credit before 2007 that helped cause the financial crisis.

We've only had more group think ever since.

The single biggest driver of income inequality in Britain today is a monetary system that has artificially driven up the value of assets. This has widened the wealth gap between haves and have nots. At the heart of the "capitalist" system, central bankers, not the market, fix the price of capital. That's not the free market. It's crony corporatism.

And both establishment parties are happy to go along with it.

Then there's the adoption scandal. Group think means more and more forced adoption, hidden from public view. More and more grandparents find their grandchildren taken off them by force. Secrecy in the family courts. Expert evidence unchallenged.

Both establishment parties are unwilling to change things. None of them is willing to end the blanket secrecy of the family courts.

It's group think that took us into what became the European Union all those years ago – and it's the group think of the Westminster tribe that keeps us there.

It's groupthink that led us into the Exchange Rate Mechanism in the 1990s.

It's group think that has tied us to the world's only declining trade block. Group think cannot see that our future prosperity means joining the 93% of people on the planet who don't live in the European Union. We need to leave the EU.

We need political reform to break the cartel, to end the group think that is holding us back.

That means a proper Right of Recall, allowing voters to trigger by-elections.

Too many MPs come from safe seats. They answer not to voters, but to party whips. We need a right of recall so that local people decide who represents them.

But we also need electoral reform to abolish the idea of a safe seat altogether.

I am so pleased to see Katie Ghose from the Electoral Reform Society here. I was a supporter of electoral reform while I was still a Conservative. I sponsored meetings of the Electoral Reform Society long before I joined UKIP.

Katie, it is a great honour to have you and the Electoral Reform Society here with us today. Thank you.

What kind of electoral reform system do we need? It's not up to me.

It'll be for you, our members, to decide.

But I would simply say this. The first-past-the-post system we have today is not a longstanding British tradition. Like so many things we think of as ancient integral pieces of how we're governed, it's a late Victorian invention.

Until the 1880s, we didn't have first-past-the-post. We had first-two-past-the-post. Most constituencies returned two MPs to Parliament. Having two MPs per constituency meant more choice and competition.

It was only in the 1880s, around about the time they gave the ordinary working man the vote, that they had to devise a monopolistic electoral system to try to control whom the working man might elect.

If UKIP is to win, we must be a force for change. And in order to carry a convincing message of change, we must radiate optimism. A belief that tomorrow can be better than today.

Optimism is infectious.

The world is getting better. Yes, there's plenty we don't like about the cartel politics and the corporatist economy. That's why our party wants change.

Most people in this country are living longer, happier, and healthier lives than ever before.

Infant mortality is not only falling in sub-Saharan Africa. It's down dramatically in this country too.

Yes, people are right to be concerned about crime. Knife crime in my Clacton constituency remains stubbornly high. But overall violence is in decline. There's less binge drinking amongst the young than a decade ago. Diseases that could only be managed a generation ago can today be cured.

Britain is a more tolerant and open society today than ever before. Let's never blame outsiders for the problems caused by political insiders.

Technology is giving us greater choice and opportunity than seemed imaginable just a couple of decades ago. Blockchains and other innovations are about to open up a whole new world of possibilities.

But there's one great, stonking reason – above all others – for UKIP to be cheerful. We are finally going to get that In/Out referendum. The thing we've all campaigned for, for so long, is going to happen.

We've all been involved in the struggle for this referendum. Many in this room deserve a medal.

David Cameron once flatly ruled it out. Not anymore. We won that argument, and it's down to many here now.

But it will all be worthless if we do not now win the referendum.

The only question that should really count is, "how can we win it?"

We need to put our country first. This is not about who wins democratic elections. It's about whether we remain a self-governing democracy at all.

We must be prepared to work with anyone – left or right, politician or undecided. All backgrounds, all faiths, all colours, all people.

There are good, honourable, patriotic members in all parties. We must work with them all.

It is not enough to win by offering opposition to Brussels. Our challenge is to show how Britain outside the EU can prosper.

It's an honour to have joined UKIP a year ago. I have made many friends and been warmly welcomed. Together we have the great referendum battle ahead. Let everything we do be about winning it. Let's do it."


30 SEP 2015

Cheer Up!

So often so much news is so glum. Here, on this bright autumn day are some reasons to be cheerful.

1. It's an Indian summer: England is bathed in stunning sunshine (just look at the view from my office!). In my corner of Essex, the autumn weather has been glorious, with a bountiful supply of blackberries and fruit.

2. Diseases are being cured: Medical advances are not only helping us live longer but curing conditions thought to be untreatable. Just in the last few weeks the World Health Organisation has backed the global rollout of antiretrovirals to treat HIV, new immunotherapy drugs are bringing new hope to sufferers of melanoma in the UK, and British doctors have pioneered stem cell surgery to reverse the effects of macular degeneration. There have been more medical advances in the last twelve months than in most of the last 10,000 years of human history.

3. Technology is taking off: Driverless cars - set to be tested on British streets next year – herald a future of lower congestion and higher safety in our cities. 3D printing is revolutionising manufacturing in everything from circuitry to cooking – bringing production to the people. The Internet of Things is transforming the home – allowing you to control heat, light, water, power, even pot plants from your smart phone. We are living through the greatest age of innovation since the industrial revolution.

4. Power to the people: The digital revolution may change even politics for the better. Blockchain technology, the basis for digital currencies like Bitcoin, has created the potential for companies, political parties, and public services to run without top down control – taking control away from the elites, and giving it to the voters.

5. Corbyn mania is just hype: Listening to Comrade Jeremy yesterday was nothing new. In fact the speech was recycled from the 1980s, and the ideas were regurgitated from the 1960s. He had lots of clichéd phrases, and little to say fresh about the condition of our country today. His poll ratings are negative – and that's in his honeymoon period. It's an existential problem for socialism, I'm pleased to say – see point 4 above.

6. UKIP rising: There is now an enormous opportunity for a forward-looking, free market party that challenges the elites and offers genuine reform. A party which understands that tackling inequality requires sound monetary policy, preserving democracy demands taking power back from Brussels, and ensuring the prosperity of everyone in Britain means breaking up the cosy corporatist cartel of Big Government and Big Business. UKIP is that party – and the latest polls show our message is getting through.

7. And if that's not enough... Christmas is only 85 days away!

Unless you dislike sunshine, hate Christmas, and have an insatiable need to tell other people how to live their lives, there is every reason to be cheerful!


28 SEP 2015

UKIP conference in Doncaster

 

 

UKIP is committed to working with any group that stands a reasonable chance of being designated the official Leave campaign by the Electoral Commission. 

Doing so ensures that UKIP is central to the official campaign - whichever group gets the designation. 

Working with everyone is in UKIP's best interests - and it maximises our chances of winning the referendum. 


25 SEP 2015

The Future's Bright, the Future's Global

David Cameron's tête-à-tête with François Hollande this week showed – once again - that his promised EU "renegotiation" is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. Six decades of ever-closer union have demonstrated beyond doubt that the European project knows only one direction of travel. A reformed EU will never be an option.

But Britain must not be afraid to quit the unreformed EU. In fact, we have everything to gain from leaving.

Britain is uniquely placed to benefit from economic cooperation with the rest of the world - if we break free from the world's only declining trading bloc. As Business for Britain's excellent Change, or Go report observes: we already have global reach in financial services; our language is the lingua franca for business worldwide; and our legal system is shared and emulated by countries across the globe.

Yet the EU is holding us back from globalisation. Instead of promoting trade, it prevents it – by raising tariffs and other barriers against countries outside Europe. Instead of making it easier to do business, it makes it harder – by undermining the global competitiveness of British companies with pointless regulation.

Moreover, the costs of staying in vastly outweigh any benefits. Even in the worst case scenario, the future cost of potential tariffs for doing business with the EU is nowhere near the current cost of EU membership. At the same time, the cost of our exposure to an ever more likely Eurozone collapse will be far greater if Britain is still chained to the sinking European ship when it happens.

Britain has been a global trading nation for 300 years. It has been part of the Single Market for only 40. There is every reason to believe that Britain can and will prosper outside the EU, and no reason to expect the EU to recover from its continual downward trajectory.

Let's not be 'little Europeans,' shackled to the failed protectionist orthodoxies of the past. There is a whole world of trade opportunities waiting. It's time for us to take them.


24 SEP 2015

Is this the age of political easy answers?

Earlier this week, I participated in a Discuss debate in Manchester, speaking against the motion, 'This is the age of political easy answers.' I argued that this is the age of political insurgency - and it needs to be taken seriously:

    


23 SEP 2015

Britain's productivity puzzle - what needs to be done

Listen to Government bravado, and you'd think our economy is in rude health. New productivity figures tell a very different story.

The Office for National Statistics records that UK output per hour lagged behind the G7 average in 2014 by 20 points – "the widest productivity gap since comparable estimates began in 1991." In fact, there is only one G7 country with lower productivity than the UK: Japan.

Why is our productivity so low? The answer lies in what the UK and Japan have in common: easy credit.

Our economy can't kick the addiction to cheap money. Like Japan, the UK has kept interest rates artificially low to prop up effectively insolvent banks: zombie companies that would otherwise fail.

Socialising the losses of a broken banking system is a bad idea in itself. Yet the broader consequences of negative interest rates are worse still. Because it is cheap to borrow, consumers borrow to spend instead of saving to invest. Money flows into speculative asset bubbles, instead of innovation. In short, the result is malinvestment: the misallocation of resources to unproductive sectors of the economy.

We are living on not just borrowed money but borrowed time. We are relying on consumption-fuelled economic growth, made possible only by an ever-growing inflow of foreign capital, and ever-widening current account deficit.

But foreign lenders will not finance our profligacy forever. They know that if we are chronically incapable of earning as much as we spend, then we won't be able to pay them back. Sooner or later the markets will react: the cost of borrowing will grow, the value of sterling will fall, the price of imports will rise – and households across Britain will suffer.

What can we do to avoid this? One thing we cannot do without is genuine banking and monetary reform – and UKIP will be putting forward practical policies to achieve this.

But other reform is necessary too. We need to reform the tax credits system and stop incentivising companies to rely on low-paid workers instead of capital investment to increase their efficiency. We need to take back control over our borders, with a points-based immigration system that doesn't discriminate in favour of cheap labour from Europe at the expense of high-value-added labour from the rest of the world.

The only way to increase our prosperity is to improve our productivity. Human history gives us every reason to be optimistic about economic progress: we can look forward to working less and earning more. Only bad public policy is holding us back.


22 SEP 2015

Osborne's Subsidy for Failure

George Osborne is in China this week, proving that politicians can't do business. Yesterday he announced £2 billion of public subsidy for a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point - to be built by French and Chinese state energy firms. He calls it "another move forward for the golden relationship between Britain and China." But who gets the gold?

Government subsidy makes nuclear energy vastly more expensive than the alternatives – and taxpayers and consumers foot the bill. The Government estimates the minimum price it will pay for energy from Hinkley Point at £89.50/MWh – double the current average wholesale energy price of £44.72/MWh. To quote the BBC's Robert Peston, Hinkley Point energy looks "scarily expensive."

But it gets worse. The Government is relying on France's state-backed EDF Energy to deliver the new power station on time and on budget. Yet EDF has a track record of failure. Its new nuclear plant at Flamanville in France, scheduled to open in 2012, is now more than three-times and €7 billion over budget, and still isn't running. EDF's tie-ups with its partners in China aren't going smoothly either, with serious concerns arising over safety.

Moreover, the Chancellor is effectively handing over our energy production to foreign governments. We will now be relying on France and China – both going through economic crises - for our electricity. So much for our energy independence and security.

Yet misguided nuclear subsidies are not enough for the Chancellor. He also backs subsidies for all varieties of renewable energy – some costing taxpayers and consumers over £300/MWh. All the while, the price of oil has fallen to under $50 per barrel and looks set to stay low.

Household energy prices should not be an issue right now. They have been kept high by cross-party collusion with Big Energy. Since Ed Miliband's 2008 Climate Change Act – supported by the Tories – UK consumers have been forced to fork out up to £18 billion every year for inefficient energy providers.

Government subsidies are the kiss of death for any industry: whether cars, or banks, or food. They remove any incentive for producers to compete, and ensure that they will never be able to survive without taxpayer support. Energy is no different. By supporting massive subsidies for renewables and nuclear, the corporatist consensus at Westminster ensures that they will never be a sustainable alternative to fossil fuels.

UKIP is the only party that stands against subsidy, and for lower energy prices. As such, UKIP is also the only party that is truly in favour of renewables and energy diversity.

Time to cut the cords of corporatism, and set energy free.


21 SEP 2015

The Injustice of Secret Courts

Too many grandparents never get to see their grandchildren again. Why?

Because the state takes their children's children into care – and then has them adopted. The key decisions are made in secret family courts.

Don't get me wrong. Most of the time, I have no doubt that the decisions made by family courts are the right ones. You need the wisdom of Solomon to make these kinds of judgements.

But too often I fear wrong decisions are being made. Perfectly loving grandparents, who are perfectly capable and willing to provide of home for the grandkids are being ignored and overruled by a system that invites collusion between the experts and the professionals.

Family court proceedings are closed to the public, and the testimony and identity of local authority witnesses is protected. As a result, local officials and expert witnesses responsible for the break-up of families are immune from public scrutiny and accountability.

Intervention to put a stop to genuine cases of child abuse is a necessity. But the lack of accountability has led to other abuses. In many cases, children have been removed from their birth parents unnecessarily, causing enormous emotional distress. Instead of being protected, some have suffered abuse in foster care that they would never otherwise have encountered.

In 2008, The Times's Camilla Cavendish wrote a series of articles documenting the failings of social services. In some cases, injuries to children had been improperly diagnosed. In others, recommendations were given by professionals who had never met either parents or children.

In response to the Cavendish campaign, Gordon Brown's government drafted legislation to allow media attendance in court and the identification of professional witnesses. But following an inquiry by the Commons Justice Committee in 2011, the legislation was never implemented.

It is time to put this injustice right, and UKIP in Parliament will be bringing forward some new ideas to do this.


19 SEP 2015

Corbynomics is OsBrown's cousin

According to Bank of England chief Mark Carney, Jeremy Corbyn's plan for people's quantitative easing would "hurt the poor". Osborne and Cameron have called him a "threat to our economic security". They're right, of course. Trouble is, they're not much different.

Osborne and Carney have pioneered "print money and pray" economics. Between 2009 and 2012, the Bank of England made asset purchases (translation: printed) in the sum of £375 billion. At the same time, it has kept interest rates effectively negative since 2008. Since Mark Carney took over as Governor in 2013, the Bank has postponed raising the base rate every month for two years. Mark Carney may disingenuously claim prices have been stable, but price inflation outstripped wages – and decreased living standards – for six straight years.

Moreover, the newly printed money has flooded into assets and created new bubbles. Not only has the stock market seen enormous rises, out of all proportion to wider economic growth, but house prices nationwide have continued to rise in spite of the recession, and in London have outstripped wages by over 15%.

This is the single biggest driver of inequality in Britain today.

Osborne supported Gordon Brown's bank bailout, one of the largest transfers of wealth from the poor to the rich in human history. He has backed the Bank to the hilt – proudly describing himself as a "monetary activist." His Help to Buy mortgages incentivise young first-time buyers to take on unsustainable debt, and promote the same subprime lending that led to the crash in 2007. At the same time, he has almost doubled the national debt, leaving the UK catastrophically unprepared for the next crisis.

Young people in Britain who cannot afford to buy a home and will spend the rest of their lives paying off their parents' debt have Osborne and the Bank to thank.

Don't misunderstand me: Corbynomics are disastrous. But they are merely an extension of OsBrown economics: inflationary, corporatist 'Soak the Poor' policies that enrich the elites at the expense of the British people.

Britain needs a real alternative: sound money, sustainable public finances, fair taxation, and free enterprise. An economy run by the people, for the people – not by the Westminster elites for their cronies.

The alternative is UKIP.


18 SEP 2015

Small Business is not for staying

We are constantly told that business wants Britain to stay in the EU. But does it?

The FSB's new survey of small businesses in the UK suggests no such thing. Look behind the spin, and the figures are startling: less than half (47%) of small businesses surveyed support staying in, and under 35% believe the EU is good for their individual business.

Meanwhile, over 40% are in favour of leaving the EU.

But should this be a surprise? Most of what small businesses produce and sell isn't for the single market at all, but instead for domestic consumption or non-EU markets. Yet whether or not they sell to the EU, small businesses still have to comply 100% with EU red tape.

Why should a coding company doing business in India, or an agri-business selling to Russia and Latin America, or a hairdresser serving customers in Clacton have to conform to rules introduced under the auspices of the Single Market? Is it any wonder many want out?

More revealing is that many small businesses don't feel informed about the EU and its impact on Britain. They are told that we need to be members of the EU to trade with it.

But common sense shows otherwise. Non EU Switzerland exports 5 times more per person from outside the Single Market than we manage from within.

If the Stay spin machine can't even get business onside, then the submit-to-EU campaign is really in trouble.

The challenge for the Leave campaign is to show how leaving the EU is better for business and trade. We are making that case - and the polls reflect it as the deep scepticism of the FSB members shows.


17 SEP 2015

Credible Opposition v. Corbynomics

On Tuesday, I voted for fiscal responsibility, supporting a proposal to reduce tax credits.

Inevitably this prompted howls of protest on Twitter. "How heartless!" one insisted. "You're letting people down" declared another.

Really? What is compassionate and virtuous about a system that permanently keeps working people in low pay?

Tax credits were introduced by Gordon Brown to reduce poverty. Far from lifting people out of poverty it has ended up keeping many people there. If big business knows that the taxpayer is going to top up low wages, they have every incentive to keep on paying low wages.

It is odd that the party Keir Hardie founded cannot see that. Tax credits on the current scale are part of the corporatist economy that is holding people back. What the Left wants us to believe is a subsidy for big corporate payrolls ends up helping working people.

At the same time, if tax credits are too high, they incentivise companies to rely on cheap labour, and disincentivise them from capital investment to increase their productivity, which would ultimately enable wages to rise. As the Telegraph's Jeremy Warner has written, 'there is little incentive for employers to improve their productivity, and therefore their wage levels, when labour is subsidised to the degree it now is from general taxation.' Hence the worrying stagnation in the productivity of our economy.

Jeremy Corbyn and the comrades support a welfare wonderland that would not merely make us a basket case like Greece. They support measures that would actually pay to prevent us getting more productive and competitive.

UKIP will always support fiscal responsibility and fair taxation. The Government's reforms to the tax credits system are a step in the right direction. There is plenty that this government is doing that needs opposing. Labour's support for Venezuela-economics precludes them from doing that job. UKIP will – with a sensible approach to economics.

Welfare reform is economically essential – and, thanks to the good sense of the voter, widely popular.


11 SEP 2015

UKIP's chance

"Labour is ... running off to the Left" suggests Fraser Nelson in today's Telegraph, and "the Tories must now run towards them."

Anyone else spot the gap in the political market? 

If Fraser is right and the two main Westminster parties canter off to the left, there is a massive opportunity for a politicial upstart - or start up - rooted on the center right, with a radical reformist agenda based on choice and competition.

"Impossible!" scoff many Westminster insiders.  Traditional Labour voters can only be scooped up with traditional leftwing policies, they presume.  

Really?  Over in the US, Donald Trump's stuborn success in the primary contest suggests that many traditional Republican voters might not actually be that into the political philosophy that guided many Republican leaders.  Digital disintermediates politics in all sorts of weird and wonderful way, including in some cases by separating insular leadership from the base.  

I just don't believe that traditional Labour voters are animated by Fabianism idealism anymore. (See Ed Miliband for details).  They are up for something fundamentally different.

About half of Labour's traditional vote may be up for grabs, Fraser informs us. And he is right.

But does anyone seriously think that many of those votes will migrate to David Cameron's Conservative party over the next five years? In whole swathes of the north of England, one thing that has helped keep an atrophied Labour party office has been the repellant power of the Tory brand.

Yes, those Labour votes are up for grabs, but they are unlikely to go to the Conservatives. The story of the last election was of Labour voters moving to UKIP. Not unlike the 1920's, I believe a process of realignment is underway.

The same research Fraser refers to suggests that Labour switchers to the Conservatives are uneasy with their new choice. Those that switch to UKIP don't look back.

The Conservatives must, according to Fraser, be the opposition to their own government. Given the extent to which many ministers in this administration are run by their mandarins, that will indeed be the case.

David Cameron has "long been fusing the best of New Labour with the best of Conservatism", according to Fraser. The Cameroons, he tells us, have picked up where Blair left off.

I don't disagree. Soft right Tory governments are almost indistinguishable from soft left Labour one's. Its what voters means when they say "all you politicians are the same".

Like New Labour, the Conservatives are pursuing the same corporatist economic agenda, with credit rationing and massive stimulus spending. And like the Blairites, they are fond of the same sort of patrician social improvement programmes. (See Kids Company for details.)

There a growing market for a radical alternative, based on breaking open the political and economic cartels that run this country in their own interests.

If Cameron chases Corbyn to the left, there'll be plenty of space on the stage for UKIP.


09 SEP 2015

Brussels is strangling the digital economy

Europe needs to change, insists David Cameron. It has to become more competitive. We need to complete the Single Market, he tells us.

This sounds plausible. But take a look at what this actually means.

In the name of completing the single market in digital services, the EU has changed the rules on VAT.

Each time a business sells a digital good to a customer, VAT needs to be paid. Previously the amount of VAT in a transaction depended on the VAT rate where the business was based.

But, of course, VAT rates vary and businesses found it more advantageous to base themselves in low VAT member states. In other words there was tax competition.

For all Cameron's talk about competition and the EU, when faced with a bit of internal tax competition - which might actually make Europe as a whole more competitive - EU officials moved to stop it.

Since January, VAT is no longer calculated on where the business in any transaction is located, but the customer.

Now there are 27 different VAT jurisdictions across the EU. Businesses selling digital goods to customers in the 27 EU states have to calculate VAT, and process VAT payments to different tax authorities, 27 different ways.

Smaller firms cannot cope, even if big corporates get by. However much Cameron and co want to associate themselves with everything Tech City and digital, on their watch the digital economy has been massively disadvantaged by these EU rules. Many digital businesses around the world amply won't sell to the EU now.

Of course David Cameron is not stupid. He can of course by now see the damage. But he's powerless to change it. He can only offer empathy and words.

It's always like this with the EU. More Europe is supposed to make things new and bright and shiny. It's all meant to be the future, which only reactionary retros oppose.

But in reality the EU leaves us less able to face the challenges of the modern world.

Our digital economy would benefit from Brexit.


03 SEP 2015

BBC's Simon McCoy virtue signals

"We have a moral duty to act" over the refugee crisis, I began the interview.  

"There are genuine asylum seekers" and we could do more to help them, I continued, as I made the case for doing more.  

Got that?  UKIP MP saying government should do more to help Syrian refugees?  

Pretty middle of the road stuff, I'd have thought.  If there was any angle to put on it, I'd have thought - at the most - it would be to point out that even UKIP thinks the government should do more.  

Not according to the BBC's interviewer, Simon McCoy.  Clearly told to expect his UKIP interviewee to make all sorts of outrageous points, he tried his best to confect a bit of outrage.

Watch it for yourself.  He seems at times to be literally clawing around to find something objectionable that I've said.    

This interview reveals more about the prejudices of BBC presenters than it does about the migration crisis, or how we might respond to it.   


03 SEP 2015

Cromwell remembered

Oliver Cromwell, that great East Anglian, died 363 years ago today.

To many, he was the hero of the English civil war. Thanks to his tenacity, the tyrant Charles I was defeated. Continental-style absolutism was overthrown. The rights of free born Englishmen and women safeguarded.

To others, he was the butcher of Drogheda. A military dictator who savagely crushed those proto libertarians, the Levellers, at Burford church, and in doing so set back the cause of English liberty.

To me, Cromwell is both – and as such, perhaps suggests that we English had our revolution a century too early.

Having defeated absolutism, we had no idea with what we should replace it (as the rather overblown Putney debates rather suggest).

If only we had had our revolution after the works of Polybius had been rediscovered in those dusty archives. Revealing, as they did, the inner workings of the Roman republic, they showed us how power might be constrained. It is no coincidence that when our American cousins had their revolution a century later, they therefore created a Senate and built a Capitol on the banks of the Potomac.

In Cromwell's time, we had no such example to guide us. So we lapsed back into despotism. Until of course, in 1688 we hit upon the idea of restraining the monarchy by putting a Dutch variety on the throne. Which worked. Sort of.

Perhaps if the works of Polybius had been rediscovered before the civil war we might now have a consul or two in Downing Street instead. And more constraints on sofa government. Or may be not.

Anyhow, spare a thought for Cromwell today. Hero or tyrannt, I hope you will agree that we still need to find better ways of holding those with power to account. 


02 SEP 2015

Passport to Britain? Once issued with one of these, a migrant can come into our country

Imagine that you are the government of Hungary. Or the head of a municipal authority in Italy.

Tens of thousands of migrants have just turned up in your jurisdiction over the past few weeks, and you haven't the resources to cope. At the same time, the migrants that you are struggling to feed and house don't really want to be there anyhow. Most are keen to press on north, into Germany, Scandinavia or the UK.

At first, perhaps you turn a blind eye if any of them clamber aboard a train heading north. Or maybe you issue a rail warrant to encourage them on their way.

How long before you do something more drastic and begin to issue migrants with official documentation that will allow them to travel freely across Europe?

The debate about how many asylum seekers we should accept from Syria is a side show. Last year, 636,000 people came into Britain. A mere 12,000 people were offered asylum.

The real issue is how many of the hundreds of thousands of migrants coming into Europe will get the right to come to Britain. So long as we remain in the EU, they will all eventually have the right to come.

Rather than focusing on the 5,000 migrants camped around Calais, we should be thinking about the 800,000 migrants who have just arrived in Germany. As soon as they get official status in Germany, they will have the right to come to Britain – and there is nothing David Cameron can do to prevent it.

As long as we remain in the EU, our borders are not controlled by British officials at Heathrow, Harwich or Calais. The ability to cross our borders is today in the hands of any official in any EU memberstate minded to issue a migrant with an ID card or passport.

At the moment, EU nationals can travel to Britain with just an ID card. These ID cards, with which one can enter the UK, are issued in many EU countries by local municipal authorities. What is to stop some local authorities in Italy or elsewhere issuing ID cards as a way of getting migrants to move on? 

I suspect it is only a matter of time before this happens.

From monetary policy to migration policy, the EU seems to export public policy failure from one member state to the next. We need to leave.


24 AUG 2015

Where is the serious thinking in government?

It was one of those watershed moments. Rev Paul Flowers, chairman of the Co-operative Bank, was asked by the chairman of a Commons committee if he knew the total asset value of the Co-operative Bank.

About £3 billion, he ventured. In fact, the total asset value of the bank over which he presided was £47 billion.

Before that moment, you would have been forgiven for assuming that those who sit on the boards of the big banks knew what they were doing.  Afterwards, it was obvious that corporate governance was not merely a problem at the Co-Op bank.

Far from being wise and competent, what if City board rooms were full of people who looked and dressed the part, but thought and talked in clueless cliché?   Those we once assumed to be capable and competent started to seem anything but.

I wonder if we will have a similarly revealing moment in politics, too.

Just like with banking, we take it for granted that those at the top in Westminster know what they are doing and why they are doing it. They are, after all, at the top. It is their job to think hard about public policy. So they must have done so, right?

A couple of days ago, the Times wrote about a new book, Inside the Nudge Unit. It is the story of the Whitehall behavioural insights team. Housed in the heart of government, this team has been able to improve the way we are governed. One of its big successes, the Times told us excitedly, has been to change the wording on letters sent out with tax returns. This has improved the rate of returns by several percentage points, apparently.

Great. But where is the new thinking about the big picture issues? Where is the unit in Downing Street thinking about how we might respond to the mass mass movement of people across the Mediterranean? What, besides more fences for Calais, do ministers propose we actually do?

Like the Co-Op board, government seems to have detailed policies on issues of relatively minor significance, but little grip on some fundamentals.

The economy is growing again. The politicos who preside over us are keen that we should thank them for it. Yet, just as we have done for decades, the increase in output is largely driven by consumption. It is a rise in output conjured up with cheap credit. We continue to live beyond our means by issuing IOUs.

Several years after the banking bubble burst, who in government is giving serious thought to monetary alternatives and real bank reform? Ministers are keen to dress in hard hats, but are they prepared to ask the kind of questions that will need answering if we are to actually rebalance the economy?

Corporate governance means scrutinising those who run things.  Just as a bank needs good corporate governance, so does a country.

If the chairman of the bank does not know the total asset value of the business, why even talk about banking ethics? If ministers cannot control our borders, why are they worrying about being able to control sea levels?

The business of government has become too big and bloated. Government needs to de-clutter. Ministers need to understand the core business of government.

Giving an additional £3 million to embattled charity, Kids Company, would not help "deliver the outcomes for which the department is funded by Parliament", the head of the Cabinet Office warned ministers recently. It did not stop them handing out the money.

Perhaps ministers need a far sharper sense of the outcomes government is there to achieve – and then some grown up thinking about how to achieve them.


20 AUG 2015

800,000 migrants arrive in Germany

Germany, we were often told, is losing people. The birth rate is so low, according to the experts, that there will be many fewer Germans in the decades ahead.

Early this year, a report by the World Economy Institute projected that the population of Germany will fall from 81 million today down to 67 million by 2060. Others talked about there being eight million fewer Germans by 2050. An official think tank produced proposals about managing demographic decline.

That was all before the summer.

Now we learn that almost 800,000 migrants are expected to arrived in Germany this year alone.  Those reports that were just a few months ago talking about 100,000 new arrivals each year are looking a little redundant.

It could be that this year is a one off. An exceptional year for migration. Demographic projections are notoriously unreliable. Alternatively, this scale of migration might turn out to be a new normal. We cannot be sure.

I suspect that in 2050 – and indeed 2060 – there will be more people living in Germany than there are today, despite what the expert think tanks once told us.


19 AUG 2015

Cheer up! Digital does not mean mass unemployment

Computers, it has become fashionable to say, are taking over. Its not just that they allow us to shop or bank online. They are, we are told, able to do more and more things that were once done by humans.

It is not merely a matter of automated checkouts and driverless cars. Ever more sophisticated digital technology means that computers may one day be capable of doing some of the things that solicitors and doctors currently do.

The techno pessimists seem cheered by the thought of mass redundancy. Technology, which has for so long raised living standards, will put us out of work, they imply. Nonsense.

Of course new technology is going to be disruptive. It will destroy jobs – and cause hardship and upheaval for those affected. But people will do what they have always done when technology increases our productive capacity; they'll find work doing something even more productive.

Here in my corner of rural Essex, a handful of combine harvesters have been getting in the wheat and the barley. A dozen or so men have been busily doing what once every villager would have laboured long and hard to achieve.  Indeed, the local schools did not start again until mid September, once the harvest was in, so that children could help out, too. 

When agriculture was mechanised many jobs went, including the one's that meant having youngsters labour in the fields. At the time it might have seemed that farm labourers might not easily find more work. But they did - and their descendants work in shops and offices doing less backbreaking work, with longer leisure hours.

Machines destroyed the job of charcoal burner, blacksmith, miller and candle maker, too.  Most of the jobs that existed in rural Essex a century or so ago have gone. Yet there are more people working in this part of Essex than ever before.

The digital doomsters cannot imagine what everyone might do for a living in the future. That tells us less about the future than it does about the difficulty they have imagining it.

In thirty years time, more people will be working in more productive jobs, sustaining an even higher standard of living than today. (Unless, of course, Jeremy Corbyn gets in). Cheer up!


17 AUG 2015

Crony corporatism makes Corbyn more credible

Corbynism is a reaction to Osbrown economics.  We must not let it be seen as the alternative.

Jeremy Corbyn, we are told, wants something called "People's QE".   Instead of using QE – or Quantitative Easing – to give hand outs to the big banks, Mr Corbyn wants to use this magic money tree to build things. People's QE, it is suggested, would be used to build better transport links and hospitals.

And why not, many might say?   If money can be conjured out of nowhere to give large City institutions massive subsidies, why not do the same for road and rail links?  If monetary policy is to be used as a form of stimulus, why not do it by building things the public actually needs?

The arguments against "People's QE" are perfectly sound. The trouble is that they are going to be rather hard to make given that the people who will be making them will have spent much of the past decade cheerfully advocating QE for the banks.

For those on the centre right, this is part of a bigger strategic problem. You cannot achieve small state, free market ends through big government, interventionist means.

This has not stopped successive Tory administrations from trying. A generation ago, Conservative ministers created the national curriculum in order to ensure teachers taught the way that they wanted. I would argue it had the precise opposite effect, allowing leftist dogma from teacher training colleges into every class room in the country.

Conservative ministers justified QE on the basis that it would "save the banks" and "rescue capitalism" blah blah blah. What it has actually done is make banks dependent on state hand outs and give capitalism a bad name.

Worse, it has created a mechanism that will allow a future leftist government to conjure out of nothingness a balance sheet that it can spend. If you have "People's QE", why even bother asking those that we elect to approve what Treasury officials wish to spend?

Again and again, Conservative party leaders make concessions to big state intervention and corporatism. All they do is enable their opponents to push the agenda to the left.

Despite being governed by those that talk right, successive administrations have taken us to the left.  George Osborne is no exception.  

If Corbyn does ever start to sound credible on Question Time, its because corporatism makes him seem that way.  

The alternative to Gordon Brown and George Osborne's "print more money and pray" economics is not Corbynism.  It is time for an unapologetically free market, small state alternative. UKIP.  Here are some ideas on what that free market alternative might look like.


14 AUG 2015

Grass roots growth

The media narrative has switched to Comrade Corbyn and Labour's leadership saga.  The professional pundits are spending their summer trying to explain a phenomenon they failed to see coming.  

The idea of politics as an authentic, grass roots activity, guided by a coherent philosophy is something they find baffling.

Meanwhile, here in Clacton last Friday evening over 110 local residents paid £10 a head to come to a fish and chip community supper.  The event was so popular, we had a waiting list.

The theme of the evening, on which I gave a little talk, was "Why we all need to cheer up!".  Think of it as Hayek and von Mises for everyone.  Optimistic, libertarian, unapologetically free market.  The world is getting better thanks to freedom and free trade.  In the era of ebay, Amazon and smart phones assembled through globalisation, these ideas have never been easier to articulate.

Of course, as everybody in SW1 knows, politics informed by a coherent philosophy is a complete no no.  Which is why most politicans keep patronising voters with empty soundbites.  

On the subject of empty, I gather there were spare seats at Yvette Cooper's big event yesterday.  Maybe they would have been filled if she had something to say?  


13 AUG 2015

The death of the Left?

Labour faces wipe-out, according to Tony Blair. If the cyber comrades really do elect Jeremy Corbyn as party leader, warns the former Prime Minister, Labour will suffer catastrophic electoral wipe out.

I reckon he's right.

For years, Labour has been run by politicians who never quite said what they meant. Triangulation and spin became such common currency in the upper echelons of the party, no one ever seemed to know what the Labour front bench stood for – least of all those on the front benches.

Craving something more authentic, and uninspired by the mediocrities standing for the leadership, the leftist tribe appear to be ganging up on line to elect Comrade Corbyn.  Lost in that echo chamber called twitter, the left simply cannot see how toxic their authentic socialism will actually be to swing voters in marginal seats.

Yet this is not merely a crisis of the Labour leadership.  This is an existential problem for the whole of the left.  

Being on the left has always meant wanting to do things by top down design. Whether under Attlee or Blair, Wilson or Clegg, the left in this country has in its DNA an assumption that human social and economic affairs are best be organised by blue print.

Comrade Corbyn's grand plan – with its aim of renationalising industry – might be a little grander than the Yvette Cooper / Andy Burnham blueprint – which will merely want to tell us how much sugar we should eat and how to raise our kids. But they are all in the business of bossing us about.

The trouble for the left is that the assumption that human affairs are best arranged by grand plan is coming to an end. Digital means the democratisation of decision making. Its not just on Spotify or iPlayer that we will be able to decide things for ourselves. Self selection is becoming a cultural norm. Public services will increasingly be personalised, to the point where it won't really matter what Yvette Cooper or Andrew Burnham think.

Corbyn's cyber comrades might believe that the banking crisis shifted politics leftward. To the rest of us, its just another piece of evidence to undermine the leftist assumption that "experts' – in this case central bankers – know best.

A handful on the left see the danger. The rest seem to be gearing up for vote for Jeremy Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyn, of course, wants to reinstate Labour's Clause 4, which talks about putting the "means of production, distribution and exchange" into the hands of the people. Of course, in the age of Amazon, additive manufacturing and bitcoin, the means of production, distribution and exchange are indeed increasingly in the hands of the people. Only not quite the way the left intended.

To me, the catastrophe of British politics happened in the 1920s, when the Liberal party was displaced by Labour. From then on, political discourse was about the extent to which the apparatus of the state should run things. From that, all subsequent disasters followed; nationalisation, currency debasement, the expansion of the state, EU membership, the rise of corporate parasitism.

But what if we could undo the tragedy of the 1920s? What if UKIP, with almost 4 million votes to Labour's 9 million, were to displace them? What if politics became a contest between a patrician market Tory party and a properly radical, genuinely reformist, free market alternative?

Vote for Corbyn, comrades!


12 AUG 2015

Would a Corbyn manifesto be allowed under EU law?

What if Comrade Corbyn wins?  Just imagine what might appear in the next Labour manifesto.

A Jeremy Corbyn-led Labour party would promise to take over the energy industry. The trains, they tell us, would be run by the state. Oil and gas companies would face nationalisation, the banks (re) nationalisation.

Those that rented houses, it has been suggested, would be given a legal right to buy their homes.

First under Tony Blair, then David Cameron, private providers have been allowed to deliver select NHS services and education. These reforms would be reversed, the state reinstated once more as the monopoly provider.

But hold on a moment.....  Would these changes be allowed under EU law?

European Union rules say that there has to be competition in certain sectors. Nationalisation would remove that. With non-UK companies and capital involved in everything from UK energy to banking, surely any efforts to expropriate such assets could be stopped as a violation of UK treaty obligations?

Even if a Corbyn-led Labour party won an election, much of its manifesto might be vetoed by Brussels.

Surely, you'd think, that is a reason to be in favour of Brussels?  At least the EU would save us from socialism.

Except it won't.  It is the EU that is giving out dated lefties a new lease of life right across Europe.

Far from being pro-free market, Brussels is a corporatist scam. Everything is run for the convenience of big business and big bureaucracy.

Under the Brussels system, profits are made by rentiers able to lay claim to public revenues. Capital is locked up in pursuit of subsidy. Amassing wealth is less about innovation in the pursuit of contented customers, and more a matter of gaining regulatory permission denied to rivals.

This, of course, gives capitalism a bad name. Which in turn is what makes Corbyn and co credible.  His policy prescriptions might be 180 degrees wrong, but there is an element of truth in Owen Jones' critique of The Establishment.

If the social and economic affairs of millions of Europeans can be organised by blueprint, why not, voters might ask, make it a socialist, rather than a corporatist, blueprint?  Brussels corporatism makes socialism more plausible.  If energy companies can be told how to generate energy, why not tell them at what price to sell it?      

When Britain joined what was to become the EU, we were told it would guarantee the free movement of goods, services and capital. The free market system, it was suggested, would be somehow locked in.

Except it isn't.  The single market is not a free market.  The EU is has produced a grisly corporatism, which is generating precisely the sort of retro socialism we struggled so hard to escape.


10 AUG 2015

This is how the NHS isn't working in Clacton

Several days after hitting her head and passing out unconscious, my constituent still had not received any medical attention.  It was not through lack of trying.

Her husband did what he was supposed to do, calling 111. Advised to attend her local hospital, she then sat there ignored for several hours, eventually feeling so unwell she gave up and went home.

When they tried calling 111 again, they only got an answerphone.

It gets worse.

When my constituent asked me to get involved, I wrote to the health minister, Jeremy Hunt.

I know that you cannot look into every individual case, I explain in my letter to Jeremy, but what is happening on the ground and what your officials tell you is taking place are two separate things. Here in our part of Essex, someone who knocks their head and is rendered unconscious cannot get medical attention for several days. Could you make a few enquires to find out what is going on?

So I get a letter back from someone called Lord Prior of Brampton. This unelected member of the House of Lords is apparently in charge of these things. Except he's not, according to his letter.

It's the responsibility of the local CCG apparently. Or NHS England. Or anyone but the NHS minister.

Lord Prior, a former MP rejected by the voters of North Norfolk, went on to become Chair of the CQC.  He served on the NHS Workforce Race Equality Standard Strategic Advisory Group.  He has been chair of Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital.  

It seems to me as if Lord Prior has done rather well out of the NHS.  My constituent cannot even get seen by a doctor.

No medical attention for her head injury. No follow up or diagnosis. No one in charge. A former quangocrat minister who won't accept responsibility.  

This is how our country is run today.


07 JUL 2015

Human Progress

It's bad news, isn't it?

Greece is poised on the verge of economic ruin. Half a million desperate migrants are likely to have crossed the Mediterranean this summer. A quarter of a million people have been killed in Syria.

These things are all truly awful. Yet when you consider the overall state of human kind, many things have actually got better.

I recently discovered Human Progress, an amazing new website that uses lots of facts and figures to show how much better things are today.

Think the world is getting more dangerous? Not so. We are living longer, safer lives, in a world that is notably less violent than it once was.

Concerned that we live in a world of injustice and inequality? Things are far from perfect, but the developing world has made remarkable progress within a few decades. Most folk around the world are much better off than their grandparents.

Fearful that the world is overpopulated? In fact birth rates are plummeting.

What really messes up the world are efforts by people to try to organise human affairs by grand design. Don't.  Stop it.  Left to human action, the world keeps getting better.


06 JUL 2015

If Greece can afford to reject more Europe, Britain cannot afford not to

This isn't how it was supposed to be. Decades of bungs from Brussels to the Greeks was supposed to create a grateful euro citizenry.

For years, EU money was lavished on Athens. New roads and construction projects were built. Massive agricultural subsidies were paid out. At one time, almost a tenth of Greece GDP was accounted for by such EU generosity.

Yet instead of showing their appreciation, the stubborn Hellenes now loathe the euro system. By a crushing majority the Greek people have rejected the hated Troika regime and what it has done to their country. Euro flags in Athens are today more likely to be burnt than waved.

What has happened in Greece is not just a run of the mill EU crisis. No council of ministers quick-fix can solve this one. This time it is existential.

Why? Because of what this crisis reveals about the viability of the European project that Jean Monnet and Jacques Delors, the two chief architects of EU integration, built.

The Monnet-Delors European ideal is based on the notion that by doing things together, Europe can do things better. The Greek crisis demonstrates how wrong that assumption turns out to be. Instead the European project has allowed public policy errors in one member state to be exported to the rest.

Greece, to be sure, is in a mess first and foremost because successive Greek governments have lived beyond their means. But it is the euro that allowed them to carry on doing so for so long.

Having showered Athens with handouts throughout the 1980s and the 1990s, as the EU prepared to take in new members in the east, a significant slice of Brussels largesse moved with it. But rather than rein things in, having developed a taste for living beyond her means, Athens was able to carry on with the good times by simply borrowing in euros.

The euro created a system of beggar-thy-neighbour economics. Borrow in the Balkans, and pass on the bill to everyone else. It's not just fiscal and monetary folly that the European project exports from one member state to the next.

Can't control your own borders or coastline? Don't worry, you can literally shunt the problem off to Calais. Suffering because your own industrial base is sclerotic and uncompetitive? Fear not. Thanks to the EU, you can create a level playing field by making everyone else in the EU equally uncompetitive too.

According to that old joke, the perfect European country would be one in which the chefs were French, the policemen British, the artists Italian and the officials German. What the EU project actually produces are Greek levels of fiscal irresponsibility, French attitudes towards free enterprise and an Italian system for controlling borders.

The Greek referendum result is crushing defeat for the European elite. Having used every sort of scare tactic imaginable to frighten the people into voting for the Troika deal, the people overwhelmingly rejected it.

This too reveals something terminal about the nature of the Monnet-Delors project. The European house the Jean and Jacque built has fundamental design flaws. It cannot much longer stand.

With no European people, or "demos", the founders of the EU project set out to deliberately create a system that co-opted support for their grand plan from local elites in each member state. The Brussels bung to Athens were not incidental, they were key to expanding the EU empire. 

By giving politicians and officials in each country a vested interest in more Europe, the architects of the EU hoped to create a momentum towards closer integration that public opinion could not stop. This explains why, in every member state including Britain, the ministers and mandarins are always more pro-EU than the people they are supposed to serve.

Yet Greece shows that that does not ultimately work. Without democratic legitimacy, no amount of collusion with local elites will hold the Brussels system together. In Greece – and perhaps soon too in Britain - local political leaders who play the role of Brussels' poodle, may not find themselves local leaders for very long.

The centre cannot hold. The house that Jacques and Jean built will fall apart. Grexit looms. So, too, does Brexit. Sometime next year there is almost certain to be a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU.

Like the Greeks, we, too, will find the EU elite, and their local satraps, trying to frighten us into voting for more Brussels. Already lobbyists with a stake in the Brussels system are pouring money into a nascent In campaign.

Unlike Greece, Britain – mercifully - never joined the euro. We have our own currency. Our economy grows, exports rise and trade with the wider world soars.

If even bankrupt Greece can afford to reject more Europe, Britain cannot afford not to.


03 JUL 2015

Greek poll won't change the laws of maths

Unless it is somehow able to change the laws of mathematics, the Greek referendum this weekend will not change the fundamentals.

This weekend Greece is being asked to vote to approve or reject the creditors demands. Pro Brussels pundits are lining up to cheer on a "Yes" vote.

Yes or No will not change the fundamentals.

Greek debts are now growing faster than Greece's ability to repay them. Only yesterday the IMF was talking about another €50 billion overdraft increase.

Maths means that Greece's debt to GDP ratio is only going to go one way - unless Greece defaults on the debt. No poll or politics can change that.

A Greek default means repaying creditors in a post-Euro Greek currency. It means higher taxes in Greece, most notably inflation tax, where by government prints too much money in order to transfer wealth from citizens to the state. It is not a case of wanting any of this or not wanting it. It is what will come to pass.

Greek governments have lived beyond the means of Greece taxpayers. They have done so for many years, and they were able to do so because European monetary union allowed Greek governments to borrow far in excess of what was sensible.

The poll this weekend cannot change any of that. It merely influenced how long this sorry saga must play out ahead of a default and abandonment of monetary union with the rest of the EU.

Greece might be the first Western state in modern times to have discovered that you cannot live forever beyond your means. She will not be the last.


02 JUL 2015

Osborne economics means £12 debt for £1 growth

Imagine if for every £12 you spent doing something you got only £1 back. If your aim was to make yourself richer, I hope you would soon have enough sense to stop doing it.

Not so if you are the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Over the past eight years since the financial crisis, successive administrations have tried to stimulate the economy by spending. For all the talk of "austerity", since 2007, government has spent £839 billion more than it has taken in tax.

The past eight years have seen, by definition if not by Treasury description, the biggest Keynesian stimulus in British history.

How much growth extra output has all this fiscal stimulus generated? £71 billion more.  Got that?  £71 billon more output for £839 billion more debt.  

A 130 percent increase in debt has been used to generate a 4.1 percent rise in output. Doh

Britain may well be the fastest growing economy in the G7. But we are the only economy daft enough to have spent £12 of debt to purchase every £1 extra prosperity.

Things might not feel so bad right now. But we can't go on like this.


01 JUL 2015

Northern power house does not mean more power in the North

It's not been a great week for the Northern Power House, has it?

First fracking. Despite sitting on enough natural gas to fuel the kind of industrial revival seen in America, it is proving almost impossible to get the stuff out of the ground. Why? It's not the laws of physics that are different on this side of the Atlantic, but the laws of regulatory restraint.

The gas must remain underground. Any dream of a northern industrial revival on the back of cheap energy must remain precisely that.

Then the rail upgrade between Leeds and Manchester got scrapped.

A day after this much heralded investment in northern transport infrastructure got cancelled, we learned that either Heathrow or Gatwick is going to get an extra runway. So much for regional rebalancing.

Despite all the talk of a Northern Power House, the economy in the north of England is barely back to where it was before the financial crisis.

The economy of London, meanwhile, surges ahead, the financial service sector fuelled by subsidies from central bankers and lashings of easy money. Quantitative Easing (QE) has been a great boon for corporate banks in the south of England.  

If you handed out free flour to bakers it would be a massive subsidy to the baking industry.  QE does something similar to banking, with easy money handouts to the banks.  No wonder the London economy is roaring ahead, while the north struggles.

Far from rebalancing the UK economy, government policy is exacerbating differences. Rather than empowering the north of England, George Osborne's wheeze makes the north of England ever more dependent on the whim of those inside the Treasury.  


30 JUN 2015

Technological innovation needs protecting from politicians

There is nothing inevitable about innovation. In fact, for most of human history there has been a striking lack of it. For most of the past hundred thousand years, one generation of Homo Sapiens lived with the same misery-inducing level of technology as the one before.

When new technologies do come along, what stands out is how often attempts are made to suppress their wider application.

Ming China restricted the use of printing technology to official texts. Efforts were made to curb the use of new spinning machines during the industrial revolution in England.

Often it is not so much an outright ban that is the problem, but regulatory restriction. 

Rather than welcoming newly invented motor cars, MPs in the late nineteenth century passed the Locomotives on Highways Acts. Amongst other things, this required a man with a red flag to walk in front of any motorised vehicle on the grounds of what we would today call "health and safety".

It's a relief to think that we are far to sophisticated and tech-savvy today to go in for any of that sort of reactionary nonsense. Except we are not.

We have been putting lots of men with red flags in front of technological innovation to slow it down.

Yesterday, councillors in Lancashire voted against a fracking development.  A new technology that would enable us to access billions of cubic feet of gas trapped in rock beneath our feet, cannot be applied because government has put in place dozens of regulatory obstacles.  

Of course, no one has actually banned shale gas extraction.  Instead we have created a red flag regulatory system that makes it practically impossible to get any of the stuff out of the ground.  

Medical science is making some extraordinary advances. A whole new range of drugs, based on our understanding of genetics, are being developed. Yet EU clinical trial rules and data protection insanity have put a series of red flags in front of their practical application.

Technological innovation means that cheap air travel is increasingly accessible to millions. Yet we put red flags ahead of aviation capacity.

In France yesterday it wasn't just a case of red flags slowing down innovation.  French officials actually arrested a couple of executives working for the taxi app Uber. (How is that new, competitive dynamic Europe thing coming along, by the way?)

Ours may be the most technologically advanced generation to have ever existed.  If we want innovation to keep happening, we need to ensure that politicians and vested interests are not able to prevent its further application.


26 JUN 2015

Dave's new deal means no real change

The rest of Europe knows that David Cameron is bluffing.  

Whatever new deal they offer him, they know that Mr Cameron wants to lead the referendum campaign in Britain to persuade the rest of us to accept it.  Not really a great negotiating position to be in, is it? 

Read my Telegraph blog which elaborates on the disaster that is Dave's new deal ......


25 JUN 2015

Nothing too grand for the Eurocrats

I popped over to Brussels this week to meet team UKIP in the European parliament.

One thing that struck me was the sheer scale of the EU's imperial ambition. It is reflected in the architecture of the parliament building, with its sweeping glass and chrome façade. It is moulded in the art that litters the corridors. It is etched on the faces of the Euro grandees that strut around the coffee bars and corridors.

If only folk back home could see this, I kept thinking.....

So here are a few photos that try to capture that atmosphere of Euro entitlement.

With so many vested corporate interests embedded in the EU corridors of power, there are special signs for lobbyists (Hat tip Steven Woolfe).

The coffee counter has two separate queues; one for mere mortals, the other for Euro politicians.

Outside the parliament building were several thousand Euro lefties on strike. They were protesting that they, too, should be allowed to live at someone else's expense.

The productive base in Europe today is no longer big enough to sustain a bloated welfare burden. And the EU grandees are too encased in their chauffer driven world to do anything about it.

No wonder Europe's economy is such a mess .....


18 JUN 2015

The left is dying

What is the point of the Labour party?

I don't pose the question to offend. It is what I found myself asking as I followed the turgid Labour leadership "debate" last night. What is Keir Hardie's party for?

The original purpose of the Labour party was, as the name suggests, to stand up for the interests of organised labour. Socio economic change means that we are no longer defined in quite the way that we once were. If the old sectional interest that the Labour party once represented has gone, what sectional interest does the Labour party in Westminster now stand for? That of career politicians, I'd suggest.

The contemporary Labour party is a cartel. It exists to sustain its MPs in office and its staffers on the payroll.

Perhaps the most extreme example of Labour as a self-serving cartel was Scottish Labour. Remember the Falkirk selection row? A small clique were accused of fixing the party's selection process.

That, I suspect, was just the tip of the iceberg. For decades Labour ran its Scottish seats as fiefdoms. The result was that some deeply unimpressive MPs were sustained as MPs in "safe seats".

Yet without choice and competition, pressures built up, erupting in a political Krakatoa in May.

But surely the triumph of the SNP, who replaced Scottish Labour, suggests that the left is alive and well?

I'm not convinced. It might not seem that way right now, but the SNP appears to me to be an aberration sustained by the Barnett formula. It is the by-product of a McPolitical system north of the border in which everyone gets rewarded for complaining about injustice, but no one needs to take responsibility for paying the bill.

Once the Scottish government has to live within a Scottish tax base, the centre of gravity in Scotland will shift dramatically. Give Scotland fiscal responsibility, and the land of Adam Smith will indeed be reborn – if not quite the way that uber lefty SNP MPs intend.

What happened to Labour north of the border could happen further south.  It is not simply that my own party, UKIP, achieved four million votes to Labour's nine million.  Nor is it because we are a close second in many northern seats. Something more profound is going on.

We live in a world of self-selection. From Spotify to our career decisions, making choices for ourselves has become a cultural norm. Who, in such a world, is going to vote for a party that offers only blue prints for how we organise society?

Twenty years ago, a sizeable slice of the electorate had memories of wartime rationing. They had grown up in a mid-twentieth century world in which the state presumed to know best. That has faded away. The last vestiges of mid twentieth century state rationing that remain have become by-words for delay and dissatisfaction.

On all the major topics of the day, the political pundits have shifted their stance dramatically over the past decade – and they've not moved to the left. Governments, they recognise, cannot keep spending money they don't have and call it investment. Uncontrolled immigration, they are willing to concede, is not always an unqualified blessing. Even (Lord) Danny Finkelstein is now willing to accept the need for an In Out EU referendum.

The left's crisis is existential. The left was born of the idea that human social and economic affairs are best organised by grand design. Digital dooms such gigantism.

Politics was once an argument between the capital and labour. It is increasingly a dispute between corporatism and the free market.

Interesting new ideas – on banking and money, political reform, the future of the EU, the digital economy – come not from the left, but from the free market, socially liberal right.

The Labour leadership candidates have little new to say because the left no longer has much new to say.


18 JUN 2015

Default? Which MPs dismissed the idea as "Eurosceptic scaremongering"?

 

Which MPs saw a default coming - and which ones dismissed it all as "Eurosceptic scaremongering"?

Four years ago, MPs debated the prospect of a default in the House of Commons.

Some MPs could see what would happen - and spoke up.

Others, such as Jo Johnson, MP for Orpington and Claire Perry, MP for Devizes, dismissed the idea of a default as "Euro sceptic scaremongering".  "Highly, highly unlikely" said Jo.

Who's judgement will you trust when the referendum happens? 


17 JUN 2015

Why we can't afford to gloat over Greece

All eyes are on Greece. A grossly indebted country, with underlying structural problems, has been living beyond it means for years. Something is going to give.

But might the same not be said about the UK economy too?

On the face of it, there is no comparison. UK output is rising fast, while GDP has collapsed in Greece. More jobs have been created in the UK in the past decade than there are jobs in Greece.

Yet before we get too cocky, the UK economic performance is not as good as it might seem.

For several years, our economy has been on the receiving end of a massive stimulus, both fiscal and monetary.

Despite all the talk of austerity, the government has in mathematical reality spent billions of pounds more than it has taken in tax, thereby injecting massive amounts into the economy. In doing so, the government has approximately doubled the national debt while adding a few percentage increases to output in return.

UK debt has grown faster than the economy. This is not the economics of a sustained recovery but of the credit card debtor.

Then there is the monetary stimulus. Governments have hosed cheap money and credit around to stimulate growth. Again, output has increased but, in the context of such a massive stimulus, not by much.

To get a sense of the economy's underlying strength, imagine if the stimulus stopped? What if the government ran a balanced budget? What if interest rates were back at the kind of level that incentivises savers to lend?  

House prices continue their dizzy upward spiral, especially in London. Savings ratios remain far too low. Household debt continues to rise. And our current account deficit – the difference between what we sell to the world and what we buy from the world – grows.

All of this, to me, suggests an underlying problem of chronic malinvestment: House prices rise not merely because of supply constraints, but because candy floss credit keeps being poured into bricks and mortar. Savings ratios are low because saving does not pay.

Household debt rises because monetary policy madness stimulates overconsumption. And the current account grows because monetary stimulus encourages us to live beyond our means, while the malinvestment it generates constrains the ability of companies to innovate and export. Oh, and malinvestment might also help explain Britain's chronic productivity problem too.

If the underlying UK economic problem is malinvestment, then one day that candy floss credit will have to come out of the system. It won't be pretty.


16 JUN 2015

The free trade case for Out

In 2006, 65 percent of UK exports went to the European Union. Last year, that figure had plummeted to 46 percent, according to ONS data.

Europe grows less important with each new set of trade statistics not merely because of the Euro crisis. Something more profound is happening to world trade.

Back in the 1990s, international trade meant developed countries buying and selling things from other developed nations - with a little bit of import and export with the less developed nations on the side. As late as 1990, trade between less developed nations was minuscule, accounting for a few percentage points of total global commerce.

This has changed dramatically in little more than a decade. Today, over a third of all global trade is between developing / emerging economies. It's happening without the old advanced Western countries involvement at all.

International trade in 2014, according to Liam Halligan, was worth $18,500 Billion. Of that, $6,000 Billion was trade between the developing world.

Africa's most important trade partners are no longer European or North American, but Asian. As late as 2000, Chinese trade with the whole of South America was worth less than $10 Billion. By 2013, it was worth $280 Billion. In 2009, China overtook America as Brazil's premier trading partner.

Of course the EU is becoming less important for the UK.  Our trade deficit would be in an even worse state it that were not the case.

Rather than sitting comfortably inside the world's only declining trade block, Britain needs to look to do deals with the parts of the world that are growing. Trade between the old industrialised states has been virtually stagnant for since 2007.

Being in the EU means we are stuck behind a common external tariff.  Worse, every British business is subject to a burdensome regulatory framework.  And we can't make trade arrangements with the parts of the plaent where the growth is.

"Being part of the EU means we have clout" insist the Brussels lobby. "It allows us to negotiate favourable terms".

On the contrary. Being part of the EU means not having trade deals at all. Outside the EU, Switzerland now has a trade agreement with China. When might we?  Due to various vested interests in Brussels, Britain does not even have free trade with India – despite the fact that Jaguar Land rover, a highly successful UK based business, is owned by an Indian parent company!

The idea that we need diplomatic clout to trade with the world is based on a misunderstanding as to why trade happens. Trade occurs when someone in one country wants to buy from someone in another. It's a question of mutual advantage between buyer and seller, not how many diplomats you have sitting at the top table.

For trade to happen, officialdom needs to get out of the way. That requires mutual standard recognition so that if it is legal to produce and sell product X in one country, it's legal to buy it in another.

When UK trade ministers (who despite all the first class air travel are famously bad at boosting trade) talk about negotiating favourable trade deals, what they really have in mind is more regulation. Their idea of a trade deal is to make it impossible to produce and sell product X in any country unless it conforms to a uniform regulatory standard. Big vested corporate interests tend to encourage this kind of arrangement, since they get to decide those single regulatory standards.

If Britain left the EU, we could, under Article 50, offer the EU genuine free trade. If it was legal to buy and sell a product or service in Colchester, it would be legal to buy and sell it in Cologne or Copenhagen too – and vice versa.

Of course, the EU might reject such a trade deal, insisting that if we wanted to sell to the EU we would have to comply with Single Market rules. But we have to do that already today.

If we only had to comply with Single Market rules when selling to the Single Market, we would be free from much of the harmful EU regulation when seeking to sell to the world. Given that almost 60 percent of our exports are now to the rest of the world, it makes little sense to bound 100 percent by every Single Market regulation.

If the EU rejected real free trade, and insisted that when selling to the Single Market we had to comply with Single Market rules, fine. There would be nothing to stop us going on to negotiate genuine free trade with the parts of the world that are prospering.

Given that the EU accounts for a rapidly diminishing share of our total exports, the case for being free to trade with the world beyond Europe grows every day.


15 JUN 2015

Europe's response to the Greek crisis - years of debt and delusion

Soon after the 2010 General Election, European leaders got together to discuss the Greek problem.

A decade of Euro membership had allowed the Athens government to borrow vast amounts of money off the banks. The debt, in Euro denominated bonds, was so vast, Athens could barely service the debt, let alone repay it. What to do?

One idea would have been to write off the debt. When a person or a country gets so into debt that they can't pay off what they owe, the least worst thing is often to make it the lenders problem.

A Greek default would have meant decoupling from the Euro, and re-establishing a Greek currency. All those debts could then be paid back, but in low value Drachmas, rather than Euros.

The consequences would have been painful. Output in Greece would contract. Credit would contract. Unemployment would rise. The banks that lent Greece all that money would have lost it.

But economic resources would have been rapidly reshuffled in the real Greek economy. As Argentina discovered after devaluation, or Britain found out after leaving ERM, growth would resume. Five years on, Greek output and living standards would be on the up.

Yet what did the people that preside over Europe do instead?

Almost unbelievably, they increased the size of the Greek debt through a series of catastrophic blunders they called "bailouts". Contrary to what the term implies, the bailouts did not alleviate the debts. Each one meant lending Greece more money, pushing Greece further into debt.

Secondly, the European governing classes used the bailouts to turn the Greek debts owed to private - often German – banks, into public liabilities. Foolish lenders were rescued from the consequences of their own idiotic fixed income investment strategies – and everyone else was left to pay.

Five years on, Greece is thirty percent more in debt than she was. The Greek economy has shrunk by a quarter. Millions of young Greeks have spent all that time with few prospects.

Yet here's the real tragedy;  For all that, Greece is still going to end up having to default, decouple and devalue all the same. But because the debts are that much bigger and the economy that much weaker, things will be even worse.

Europe's delusional elite, obsessed to the point of madness with their grand Euro projects, have spent five years making things worse.

The irony is that Greece is now looking to non EU Iceland for a solution. Far from passing private liabilities on to the public, Iceland told foolish bankers to take a hike. Some banks went bust. The currency devalued. The reshuffle started. Growth resumed.

Five years on, Iceland is doing pretty well. The next generation in Reykjavik will do better than the one before. How many Eurozone countries can say the same?


10 JUN 2015

How EU membership killed off UK clinical trials

How are we Better Off Outers to make our case? How do we show those undecided voters that Britain would do better if we left the European Union?

It won't be easy.

Brussels trade rules might be holding us back from dealing with the world. But it is hard to show something that's not happening. EU regulation might be stifling innovation. But how do you point to something that isn't there?

What benefits there are to being inside the EU - the grants and handouts - are tangible. The costs and lost opportunities are often dispersed and hidden.

Then along comes the EU Clinical Trials Directive.

Back in 2000, Britain lead the way in medical research. Six percent of all clinical trials world wide took place here.

This was good news for UK universities, hospitals and scientists. It was also great for those patients who benefited from pioneering treatment, too.

But the EU Clinical Trials Directive, whose regulations came into effect in 2004, put an end to much of this vital medical research.

Thanks to the Euro regulations, by 2006 a mere 2 percent of all patients entering into clinical trials were in the UK. By 2010 it was down to 1.4 percent. Medical innovation did not stop. Like HSBC is about to do, it merely moved to another non-EU jurisdiction.

Between 2007 and 2011, the number of clinical trials in the UK fell by 22 percent. According to Cancer Research UK, those cancer clinical trials that still take place in Britain take 65 percent longer to set up. Britain dropped from being the third most important place in the world for clinical trials, to an also ran. Beneath a blizzard of red tape, we slipped into mediocrity.

"But" defenders of the Euro system will say "those old EU rules are about to be replaced by bright new regulations which won't stifle clinical research".

Perhaps. But why must it take a decade of disastrous over regulation to get the rules changed? Why, for a decade, did all those trials not happen, those patients go untreated and those jobs and innovation have to move away?

If those that made the rules were meaningfully accountable to those affected by the rules, we could get it right right away.

If Britain was to determine our own rules for clinical trials we might become a world leader once again.  And what applies to clinical trials applies to almost every area of public policy.

If Britain was free to decide policy for ourselves, then from trade to technology, energy to the environment, we could innovate and adapt. 

Free from the corporatist clutches of Brussels, Britain would thrive and prosper because we would be open to innovation and the world.


03 JUN 2015

Explaining how I vote each time in Parliament

Digital is overturning many of our assumptions about size and scale. In terms of political communication, digital means that you no longer have to be big to get your message across.

As UKIP's sole MP in Parliament, I will be using digital technology make sure that UKIP gets heard.

Starting from this week, I will post on to my Facebook page every time that I take part in a Commons vote or debate – with a short explanation as to why I have voted the way that I have.

Many MPs hide behind the herd as they tramp through the division lobbies. They meekly vote the way the whips text tells them, the weekly whipping instructions  remaining a closely guarded secret.

I'll be putting an account of why I vote the way I vote on line each time.  That way, everyone gets to see what I am doing.

I be voting in what I beleive to be the best interests of my constituents.  I'll also aim to vote consistently for less government, lower taxes and for personal freedom. Oh yes, and for free trade – the great engine of human progress.

Do please link up to me on facebook.... 


26 MAY 2015

EU renegotiations; right not to rush

Exhilarating, isn't it?  A referendum on Britain's continued membership of the European Union is at hand. For the first time in a generation, there's a real possibility that Britain might leave.

With that prospect so tantalisingly close, it's tempting to want to rush ahead. "Bring it on!" many regular readers will say.

Hold on. Let's make sure we maximise our chances of winning.

Like it, or not, a great many voters - despite all that Brussels red tape and all those ghastly EU commissioners – have yet to be convinced that we should leave. If you think that winning over fifty percent of the votes is easy, just cast your mind back to election night in your constituency ......

For almost forty years, we Brits have complained about Europe. We've found the over regulation irksome and the arrogance of Brussels officials overbearing. We have muttered and grumbled.

But every time we have started to contemplate the alternatives, the political elite have bought us off with the promise that things are about to change.

Maastricht, we were told, was the high-water mark of federalism. Deregulation, Tony Blair insisted, would make Europe globally competitive. Subsidiarity would close the democratic deficit.

Of course, none of it ever happened. But the idea that things would be different has been used to keep us in. Let's not fall for it again.

That is why we should allow David Cameron time to negotiate his new deal.

Show us what different looks like, Prime Minister. Take your time. Don't rush things with Jean Claude Juncker. Why just a weekend at Chequers? Invite him to stay for the summer, if it helps....

The longer that the Prime Minister takes negotiating his new deal, the more evident it will become that there is no fundamentally new relationship with the EU on offer. Indeed, the Prime Minister is not even pushing for it.

The primary purpose of Mr Cameron's new deal is not to change our relationship with the EU, but to keep us in - just like Harold Wilson's faux deal all those years ago.

Once it becomes apparent that things are not fundamentally going to change unless we leave, many of those undecided voters will decide that enough is enough.  The only way to get the trade-only arrangements with Europe is to vote to quit the EU. 

Another brandy, Jean Claude?


22 MAY 2015

Grexit? The two facts that tell us all we need to know

Since 2007, general government debt in Greece has risen by 30 percent. Over the same period of time, the size of the Greek economy has declined by 25 percent.

Forget all the blah blah from the expert pundits. Ignore all the shenanigans about what one politician said to another. Those two bald facts are all you need to know.

Greek debt has increased with every bailout (a bailout does, after all, mean assuming more debt), and the ability of Greece to pay it back has diminished.

At the very outset of the crisis, some of us said that the least worst option would be for Greece to do the three Ds; Default, then Decouple from the Euro and then Devalue. If that had happened five years ago, Greece today would no doubt be well on the road to recovery, with a competitive currency and with all that malinvestment out of the system. 

Instead our government, along with the rest of them, went ahead with a rescue plan that was specifically designed to save banks from their own exposure to Greek debt - but not actually rescue Greece from any debt.

Thanks to this disastrous approach, five years on, Greece has acquired five more year's worth of debts, making the inevitable crunch when it comes all the more painful.


21 MAY 2015

UKIP economics

The UK economy is growing – and rather fast compared to other Western states. Great.

But so it should be given the size of both the fiscal and monetary stimulus.

This year, the government will spend £ 75Bn more than it will take from the economy in taxes. For all the talk of austerity, the government been engaged is a massive Keynesian spending stimulus for almost a decade now.

To put it into perspective, this spending stimulus has ranged between 5 and 11 percent of GDP for seven years in a row. That dwarfs the sort of spending stimulus we saw in the 1960s and 1970s, the supposed heyday of Keynesian orthodoxy.

At the same time, the economy has been hosed with cheap credit and Quantitative Easing.

What would be remarkable, given all this stimulus, is if there had not been any growth.

"But" I hear you say "if there's really has been so much stimulus, where's the inflation?"

Of course the prices of some things, such as houses and other assets, are rising. The prices of various consumer goods, however, are not. Might this not have something to do with the massive expansion in productive capacity that has occurred as Asia and the rest of the world industrialise?

There are limits to what stimulus economics can achieve. Sooner or later policy makers will discover that growth needs something else.

First, we need supply side reform. That is to say, instead of creating growth by making people spend more, we should make it easier for wealth producers to produce wealth. Sajid Javid's arrival at the department of Business, Innovation and Skills could, potentially, be very good news – if the EU rules allow him to deregulate.

Supply side reform also means making it easier for energy producers to generate cheaper energy. We need to break the energy cartel and replace it with a functioning market.

Secondly, we need to put some serious thought into the impact of in-work benefits.

Gordon Brown created a Byzantine system of tax credits, which in effect subsidise low wages. If you subsidise low wages, wages stay low.

There is a growing clamour for a "living wage". Might it be that many people are on less than the living wage because the state is actively subsidising their employers to keep paying them below the living wage in the first place?

As well as keeping wages low, could in-work benefits also explain poor productivity growth? Might it not have some impact on migration, too? Surely that is worth asking on the day that net migration tops 318,000?

Flush with their recent success, the Conservatives (Sajid and one or two others aside) seem in no mood to question the corporatist orthodoxies they find in government. Labour, faced with an existential crisis, can't. It is up to UKIP to develop a coherent, credible alternative to the government's carry on corporatism.


19 MAY 2015

Red UKIP? We are not Poujadiste

UKIP will, I fervently hope, displace Labour. We could do to Labour south of the border what the Scottish Nationalist have done to the north.

Impossible?  If the recent election results are anything to go by the signs are pretty encouraging.

UKIP polled almost four million votes to Labour's nine. Before the last election, dozens of Conservative MPs feared losing their slender majorities. Today they are back in Westminster with bigger majorities. Why? Because their local Labour vote went UKIP. That's where UKIP's future lies.

Does displacing Labour mean some sort of "red UKIP" strategy?  Not at all - and here's why.

Labour today is a party of statism. The shape of the blue print envisaged for society might vary. To what ends the levers of state control should be tugged will be debated by different Labour leadership contenders. But Labour is hooked on the idea of top down control.

Labour might have abandoned socialism, but Labour is a corporatist party, on the side of vested interests; PFI, which gives big business a guaranteed slice of future tax revenues. Energy targets, which mean subsidies for big energy companies paid for by ordinary householders. Bailouts for bankers, tax breaks for a favoured few.  Look at the lobbyists who hover around the party like files ....

Labour once stood up for ordinary people against the interests of the powerful. Today Labour sides with remote EU functionaries and well-renumerated Human Rights lawyers.

Keir Hardie's party today shows a patronising distain for the very folk the party is supposed to represent.

UKIP can offer an alternative to Labour not by apeing the left, but by offering something radically different.

UKIP believes in dispersing power. We want political reform to make government accountable to Parliament and Parliament answerable to the people. We don't merely seek to return power from Brussels to Westminster, but to push control from Whitehall to the town hall.

We want to disperse economic power, too. The way to do that is not through corporatism, but via honest markets.  Real markets that work for customers, as well as producers.

What would dispersing economic power look like?

From education to health care, digital technology allows us to have public services provided to the public with a degree of personalisation that was once the preserve of the private sector.

It would mean real bank reform. Instead of reining in the worst excesses of fractional reserve banking with top down regulation, and bail outs, we need to make the case for comprehensive bank reform.

Osbrown monetary policy has transferred wealth from those with savings to those with assets. Hosing cheap credit at the housing market has inflated house prices, putting homeownership beyond the reach of many in their twenties and thirties. Sooner or later we will need a different approach. (See: http://www.douglascarswell.com/downloads/after-osbrown.pdf )

We need an energy market that encourages innovation and pushes down energy prices. At some point the PFI taps will need to be turned off.

Instead of spending the defence budget in the interests of contractors, we need to see it spent in the best interests of our armed forces.

Here is the outline of an agenda for UKIP that is both free market, and popular – not Poujadiste.


11 MAY 2015

Good reasons for UKIP to be cheerful

The delight I felt in the early hours of Friday morning having won my Clacton seat soon turned to dismay. First came news that my good friend Mark Reckless had lost in Rochester. That was followed by despondence at the news of Nigel's defeat in Thanet.

In seat after seat, so much effort had been made by so many people – and all for so little.

So what next for UKIP?

We should not despair. In terms of seats won, election night might not have gone well. Looked at another way, it was an amazing result. Almost four million people voted for us, making UKIP Britain's third party.

As many people voted UKIP on Thursday as voted for both the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party combined. The shocking failure to convert votes into seats is less a failure of UKIP's campaign strategy than it is a failure of our dysfunctional political system.

However infuriating we might find the Commons arithmetic in this new Parliament, take heart. David Cameron, with his slender majority, is likely to find it even more annoying.

Over the next five years, Parliament is going to really matter. Ministers will really need to make their case every time - and cannot automatically assume that they will get their way.

Beyond Westminster, UKIP – and the factors that explain our rise - are not going away.

As long as Britain remains bound by the European Union, politicians might be able to win votes by promising things. They won't be able to deliver when so many of the decisions that affect our lives are made for us by Brussels.

Far from abating, the mood of anti-politics that fuels UKIP will only grow. We need to become a champion for change; giving voters the power of recall, so that local constituents can sack wayward MPs, open primary candidate selection and electoral reform.

UKIP might have only finished first in a single seat, but we finished second – often a tantalisingly close second – in 120 seats. That bodes well for our future.

Our candidates, often standing for the first time, have gained valuable experience. This means we now have a cadre of campaigner's right across the country.

With David Cameron in Number 10 and Labour in turmoil, the opportunities for UKIP to present a credible alternative are going to be enormous. To do so, Ukip needs to reach out beyond the four million people who voted for us last week.

Many of the seats where UKIP finished second are in the north of England. Far from being a party of Tory ultras, UKIP's future lies in extending our appeal, and not simply geographically.

While the Scottish National Party can only stand candidates north of the border, the disaffection with the Labour party that has fuelled their rise reaches right down towards Manchester and the midlands.

Study a map of support of UKIP, and you will see deep purple patches in the old Labour heartlands. Like much of Scotland, these are often constituencies where the Conservative party has only existed on paper for at least a generation. At the same time, voters in such seats have begun to tire of a Labour party that regards them as their private fiefdoms.

The idea of displacing the Labour party is not fantasy. Ed Miliband's party got slightly over 9 million votes. At almost 4 million, the UKIP tally is not impossibly far behind even now.

Positioning ourselves as an alternative to Labour does not mean that we should imitate Labour. Ed Miliband has neatly demonstrated the folly of offering the voters retro 1970s socialism. Not even Ed Balls former constituents were convinced about the would-be chancellor's high tax and regulation approach.

Years of bank bailouts and cosy deal making between big government and big business has started to give capitalism a bad name. First under Blair-Brown, then under Cameron, Britain has shifted away from the free market towards a form of crony corporatism. There is a massive gap in the political market space for a new popular, democratic capitalism, which works of ordinary people.

In the age of Amazon, the case for free trade has never been easier to make. Ukip should be making it. In a world where in work benefits are subsidising low wages – and thus keeping wages low – we need to be prepared to advocate alternatives. Poor productivity growth is not just something that should concern policy wonks. It is harming people on every high street.

Nigel Farage has been an inspirational leader. Like hundreds of thousands of other people, he inspired me to leave the comfort of by previous party, and join him. I was prepared to resign from Parliament and fight a by election in order to do so. I feel gutted that he is no longer our leader.

But I will not stand to be leader of UKIP. Why? Because I can think of half a dozen figures in UKIP who could do the job better; Suzanne Evans, Patrick O'Flynn, Stephen Woolfe, Paul Nuttall or Diane James.

Every anti-establishment movement in history suffered set backs. But the successful one's were those that united, regrouped and carried on. UKIP's next leader will do so, too.

Ukip's next leader needs to be someone that recognises our party exists first and foremost to get Britain out of the European Union. We should take heart from the fact that there now appears to be, for the first time in a generation, a Commons majority in favour of holding an In Out referendum.

We could be two or three years away from achieving the very thing our party was founded to achieve all those years ago.

Everything that our new leader does over the coming months needs to be directed at securing a majority in favour of leaving the EU. Given than 87 percent of people did not vote Ukip at the last general election, Ukip needs to campaign in the coming referendum as part of a wider movement. Yes, we might be passionate about the need to leave the EU. We should recognise that we might not always be the best people to make the case to undecided voters.

We need to recognise that the case against our continued EU membership is not simply a matter of immigration, but of a better kind of Britain for the future.

Ukip must not make the mistake made by the SNP in their recent referendum. We should not equate support for leaving the EU with support for our own party. Do that, and the European Commission in Brussels would be delighted.

Between now and 2020, UKIP needs to focus on selecting good local candidates in key seats – and selecting them early on. Our candidates need to be local champions, as passionate about safeguarding the local maternity unit or police station as they might be about immigration or defence.

UKIP used to worry about getting noticed. What matters now is that we are listened to - and that means speaking more softly. And when we do speak, we speak to all Britain - and all Britons. Politics is about bringing people together – literally, in order that as many as possible each place their cross on the same part of the ballot paper.

Cheer up UKIP!  Ultimately in politics optimism works. From Clement Attlee to Ronald Reagan, presenting a brighter ideal for the future is an essential ingredient for electoral success. Ed Miliband today probably wishes he spent a little more time outlining not what was wrong with Britain, but what he would do about it to make things better.


28 APR 2015

Clacton candidates' hustings

Last night was the candidates' debate in Clacton – and it was very enjoyable.

About 350 residents came along – and the number one issue seemed to be the council's plans to allow 12,000 extra houses in our area.

I explained why I feel the council has got this wrong. Things got a little heated between some of the panellists and the audience when the panellists tried to justify extra housing.

All the other candidates came out in favour of increasing Britain's overseas aid spending to over £12,000,000,000 a year. I explained why I felt that the aid budget needed to be cut.

I also highlighted the need for more GPs - and touched on the action I have taken to recruit more locally.

There is clearly overwhelming support to keep open Clacton police station, and I am pleased that on that issue, at least, we have cross party support.

I think it is fair to say that one or two had probably decided how they were going to vote before the meeting started. The audience was certainly lively and seemed to enjoy it!


10 APR 2015

What were they thinking?

How clever it must have seemed. What a wheeze! When the ad agency unveiled this poster at Conservative campaign HQ a few weeks ago, I bet they chortled at their own brilliance.

"Yeeess!" the assembled aides would have agreed. "Ed Miliband in Alex Salmond's pocket. Ha! Doesn't it just show why people need to vote Conservative!"

To me this poster shows something rather different. It illustrates quite how detached the political classes, who design these sort of things, have become from actual voters.

Standing in front of one of these posters here in Meredith Road, Clacton I got talking to passers-by about it. Many simply did not recognise Salmond. Some thought it was Gordon Brown. My impromptu focus group, like me, simply could not see what point the poster was trying to make.  It is far too SW1.  

There is nothing in the poster that speaks to ordinary folk in Clacton worried about a shortage of GPs. It has nothing to say to someone struggling to get by on wages that have flatlined for six years.

But, of course, no one at that meeting in Conservative HQ would have seen it that way. That's because politics to them is not about the real concerns of ordinary people. It's a game of clever-dickery. With people like George Osborne running their party, it's all about clever tactics and cunning wheezes.

This poster tells us how tepid the Tory party has become. The party that once produced Thatcher is, under the Cameroon clique, reduced to saying "Vote for us, or you will end up with someone even worse. Ha!".

Indeed, this poster is so bad, I feel free to break that political rule about not flagging up your opponents election material. I hope more folk get to see it in Meredith Road.


09 APR 2015

Guess what we got up to yesterday?

 

 

 

 

Something to please David Cameron?  Carswell's head on a stake all over Clacton.


08 APR 2015

Clacton campaign diary: Less overseas aid means more for our armed forces

Today we begin putting up garden boards. The great news is that lots and lots of them have sprung up already.

Here is a photo of Connaught Avenue, Frinton, yesterday afternoon. Folk keep coming into the office asking for window posters – so much so that we have had to order a second print run.

Over the past three years, the government has massively hiked up the amount of money we spend on overseas aid. So much so, in fact, that the Department of International Development was – according to some accounts – struggling to spend the money fast enough.

While we send £1 billion a month overseas, our own armed forces are underfunded.

If that was not bad enough, we face renewed global threats. Terror groups have a toe hold on the southern and eastern Mediterranean. Putin, in my view, spells trouble.

Any sensible government, you'd have thought, would recalibrate spending to reflect these new dangers. Alas, Ed, Dave and Nick all agree on the need to spend 0.7 percent of national income on overseas aid. They even joined forces to pass a law to insist we meet that overseas aid spending target.  They refuse to make any such committment for defence spending. 

Only UKIP is willing to commit to spending 2 percent of GDP on defence.

Can you imagine what it must have been like running election campaigns before we had mobile phones?

Mobiles mean that no one ever gets lost when out leafleting. It also makes campaigning much more fun, with photos and tweets. Yesterday, I even used an app to tell me how far I walked knocking on doors. Just over nine miles, apparently ....


07 APR 2015

Clacton spring

 

 

 

 

 

 

Spring has sprung in Clacton. It is a joy to be out knocking on doors.

The daffodils and magnolias are out – and my window posters are going up.

Yesterday we almost completed the delivery of my early leaflet. With around 35,000 to deliver, that's a lot of letter boxes. But with dozens of local volunteers, it's more or less done.

Mid-afternoon a car pulled up alongside me. Two Jehovah's Witnesses wanted to help too. Unable to vote, they asked if they could take some leaflets to give out to friends and neighbours. A wonderful moment in so many ways.....

Back in the office for a quick tea break, a London-based journalist came in to do a short interview. The questions were almost identical to the ones asked by the previous London journalist, and the one before that.

First comes the suggestion – sorry, question - that UKIP is extremist. I point out patiently that it wasn't a UKIP candidate that tried to cut a deal with the racist English Defence League. It was a Cameron "A list" Conservative.

Then there come the set of questions that are really an attack on UKIP immigration policy. I gently suggest that there is nothing unreasonable in wanting to control our borders or limit the right of 400 million people to settle here.  Australia does it. 

Not for the first time, I am struck by how many journalists working for national newspapers don't seem to be in the business of reporting what they see and hear.  Particularly during an election campaign, they seem to be fishing around for quotes and observations that they can insert into a story they had in mind before they left London. Perhaps their editor instructed them on what sort of piece to write?

"Why" ask some of the more reflective ones "is this mood of anti-politics so strong?"

Perhaps, I suggest, it is not simply a revolt against out of touch Westminster politicians. It is a rejection of a smug, self-regarding commentariat, which has for too long sought to define for the rest of us the parameters of public policy debate.

I'm not sure they always get that last point.

Today we start leaflet number two .... Week two, and we are ahead of schedule here in Clacton.


01 MAR 2015

Watch the Conservative candidate calling for 12,000 extra houses

The Conservative candidate has made it clear that he is in favour of 12,000 extra houses in our area. 


26 JAN 2015

Greece suggests Mr Cameron cannot get a meaningful renegotiation

How different it all seemed when the Euro was launched a decade and a half ago. It was meant to mean a new era of prosperity. A single currency would, we were told amid much fanfare, strengthen the free market and underpin the liberal order across Europe.

Not much sign of that in Greece right now.

The ultra-leftists, Syriza, have been elected to office on the back of a popular revolt against the Troika. An assortment of odd balls and extremists could now hold the balance of power.

Alex Tsipras, Greece's Prime Minister elect, will now attempt to tread a fine line. On the one hand he is committed to negotiating a new deal for Greece, based on debt reduction. On the other hand, he does not want to be so demanding that he gets Greece thrown out of the Euro.

In other words, Alex Tsipras is in a not altogether dissimilar position from our own Prime Minister, David Cameron.

Like Tsipras, Mr Cameron wants a new deal, but does not want to get thrown out of the club. In fact, he's made it pretty clear he is keen to stay in.

Like Tsipras, the Prime Minister has made a lot of pre-election noise about a new deal.

It will be interesting to see what new deal, if any, Tsipras gets.

Bizarrely, given that Britain is a net contributor to the EU budget and one of the largest economies in the world, Greece stands a better chance of getting the concessions it seeks than David Cameron.

For a start, Tsipras been consistent and clear about what he wants; debt cancellation, continued bailout support and a looser fiscal policy. David Cameron has given all manner of vague and contradictory hints. Indeed, his officials have almost given the impression to their EU counterparts that Mr Cameron is not that serious about his new deal.

One of the curious features of the European Union is the way that it exports public policy failure from one state to another. Countries that manage their finances sensibly get punished. Those that run up reckless debts get rewarded. Those economies that grow get fined by Brussels. Those that flounder receive ever large hand-outs.

The Euro system will be far more willing to make concessions to a Greek Prime Minister wanting the re-write the rules in order to prop up a dirigiste state, thereby deepening its dependence on Brussels, than it would concede anything to a UK Prime Minister seeking less Europe.

If Tspiras does not get more than paper concessions, it further undermines the credibility of those in Downing Street who want the British electorate to think they are serious about change.

Perhaps the key difference between Britain and Greece is that if Greece leaves the Euro, it will be because the Brussels elite call time on membership. If Britain quits, it will be because the people say enough.


21 JAN 2015

The case for wind is running out of puff

A Ten Minute Rule Bill to outlaw public subsidies for wind farms has just been voted through the House of Commons. It squeezed through with 59 MPs in favour, and 57 against, the support of UKIP's two MPs proving decisive.

This wasn't just a victory for UKIP in the Commons. It was a defeat for the subsdised scam otherwise known as the wind energy industry.

Generating electricity from wind is an inherently costly thing to do. Unlike solar energy, which thanks to technology is becoming vastly more efficient, wind is - and will remain – a far more costly way of producing power than the alternatives.

Nor is it reliable. The other day, as Allister Heath points out, as UK electicity demand hit 52.54 gigawatts (GW), wind contributed just 0.573GW. That is to say about 1pc of the total. It was left to good old gas and coal to contribute the lion's share of 71 percent.

If wind is not an effective way to generate electricity, why have so many wind turbines been built? Because of the subsidy. Billions of pounds have been deliberately diverted away from more efficient ways of generating energy into wind farms.

Why did politicians and experts decide to plough so much into such a duff way of generating power? Partly it is because they failed to foresee technological change. Policy makers plumped for wind because they assumed that oil and gas would become more expensive. They failed to see the shale gas revolution coming.

At the same time, UK policy makers subscribed to the whole renewable energy shtick. Wind, they persuaded each other, had to be the answer in order for us to meet our renewable energy targets.

This has been a disastrous way of deciding energy policy. We need to scrap the renewable targets. Allow capital and technology to find innovative ways to generate energy. And scrap those subsidies.

Today was a step towards that.


15 JAN 2015

Can Britain be more prosperous than America? Not if we are run by cartels

"There is no reason why Britain cannot be the richest major economy in the world" George Osborne has declared.

In a sense, the Chancellor is absolutely right. Britain ought to be booming.

We are witnessing the emergence of a global middle class around the globe. Each year, tens of millions of people join a sprawling network of innovation and exchange. Britain, with our global ties and outlook, ought to be thriving as never before.

Yet for all that, there is one central, thudding reason why Britain is definitely not the richest major economy in the world: government policy.

With an election looming, Mr Osborne wants to "talk up" the economic mood, with heady suggestions that Britain might become richer than the United States within the next fifteen years. For that to happen, we will need to see some fairly radical changes, and fast.

Over the past decade, governments of all three parties have deliberately increased the cost of energy. Why? In pursuit of various "renewable targets". Yet burning fossil fuel remains the cheapest way of generating energy. Shale gas technology means that the costs are likely to be even lower.

While Mr Osborne's government has been pricing British businesses out of world markets by pushing up energy costs, the United States – awash with cheap shale gas – has been re-industrialising (In 2012, gas prices were 55 percent lower in the United States than in Britain).

If the Chancellor wants us to be richer than America, we will need to be as productive as the Americans. Yet on Mr Osborne's watch, the opposite has happened. In the United States productivity has risen. In the UK, it has deteriorated. Why? Perhaps it has something to do with a tax credit system that subsidises low wages at public expense and provides disincentives against productivity gains.

Since the advent of the European Single Market in 1992, Europe's economic growth has been slow in both relative and absolute terms. North America's NAFTA has created many more jobs, attracted more investment, and raised the living standards of hundreds of millions of people ever higher.

Why the difference? Because Europe's Single Market does not mean more free trade. On the contrary, it means that an entrepreneur can only produce and sell something if they do so in compliance with what the regulator permit. Why else do you imagine that a supposedly free market block requires an endless blizzard of regulation and red tape.

Perhaps the real reason why Britain is unlikely to be as prosperous as we could be is down to politics. Again and again, our sclerotic political system fails to offer us a broad range of public policy answers. Instead we get the same cliché-addled politicians and their Westminster group-think.

Imagine how we might flourish if we changed that?