Chris Philp: A freeze in benefits will cut the deficit and increase the incentive to work

Chris Philp was the Conservative Candidate for Hampstead & Kilburn at the 2010 General Election, losing to Glenda Jackson by just 42 votes.

Recent media reports have suggested that the Government is considering freezing or limiting benefits increases. This move is very welcome – and long overdue.

This year, benefits went up across the board by 5.2% deepening the deficit by an extra £10 billion per year. This is because the inflation figure used for setting the benefit increase was the September 2011 one – the highest monthly inflation figure in recent years.

An increase of this magnitude was simply not fair. Firstly, inflation has averaged about 3.5% over the last year, and is now down to 2.5%. Secondly, public servants such as nurses, police officers, teachers and members of the armed forces had to make do with pay rises of only around 2%. And in the private sector, many people have not had a pay rise at all. Why should benefits go up so much more than the wages of those who actually work?

During Labour’s time in Government, the welfare bill doubled – from £93 billion to £188 billon. Even adjusting for inflation, it went up by 50% during their time in office. Today, at £207 billion per year, it consumes about 30% of all Government spending and is by far the biggest line item in the national budget. If we are going to tackle the deficit, it is vital to get the welfare bill under control.

Chris Philp: There are compelling local and national reasons why we should vote No to AV

Chris Philp was the Conservative Candidate in Hampstead & Kilburn at the last election (losing by just 42 votes) and is the Conservative “No” Coordinator for London.

At the last election, I lost Hampstead & Kilburn to Glenda Jackson by the agonising margin of 42 votes. This was made all the more galling as Thrasher & Rallings suggested we started in a distant third place. But despite losing under FPTP, I’m campaigning hard for a No2AV vote – for national and local reasons.

Nationally, our voting system is our way of choosing and removing Governments. AV will lead to substantially more hung Parliaments – and hung Parliaments have three constitutionally damaging consequences:

1. The power to select and kick out Governments will pass from the people to just one person: the leader of the third party. The power to chose and remove the Government is the most precious  thing in a democracy, and we must not give it up
2. Parties will make vote-grabbing manifesto promises they know they cannot actually keep – counting on the fact they can blame a future coalition for ditching these promises. It will fatally undermine accountability with voters
3. FPTP delivers Governments with a clear, unambiguous agenda. The public can then re-elect or kick out those Governments on the basis of their record. Simple, clear and fair.

Coalitions may work at a time of national crisis when a broad-based Government is needed. But not as a regular feature of our politics.

Chris Philp: Business (not government) can deliver new, real jobs – and with it prosperity and social justice for the nation

Chris Philp is an entrepreneur who floated his first business (a distribution company) on the stock market when he was 29. He was the Conservative candidate in Hampstead & Kilburn at the general election and came within 42 votes of winning.

George Osborne’s Spending Review is an essential step towards putting the national finances back in order. It deserves our full support.

The Government’s biggest challenge now is to ensure private sector jobs are created - to replace those lost in the public sector, and to provide work for those on benefits. The best way to fight poverty is by creating real jobs, so everyone in society has an opportunity to do well for themselves and their families. Creating real jobs is a far more potent weapon against poverty and inequality than Labour’s approach – which is simply to hand out borrowed cash.

Of course, the Government can’t create jobs. Business does. But the Government should create the conditions for growth. The beneficiaries of this will not simply be business owners. It will be our nation as a whole. The profits business generates are taxed, and pay for doctors, nurses and police. They help reduce our deficit. Jobs created will help the 5 million on out-of-work benefits back into work. Creating new jobs enables social justice.

Ironically, the Labour Party thinks that over-taxing businesses and wealth creators helps the poor. In fact, it does the reverse. It destroys British jobs and makes more people poor.  To deliver real social justice, we must make the UK the most business-friendly country in Europe.

Chris Philp: Honours for sale

Chris is a social entrepreneur and was elected as a Conservative Councillor in Camden this May, beating the sitting Labour Leader and tripling the Conservative vote in an inner city ward. Chris was Chairman of the Bow Group in 2004 and advised Andrew Lansley during the 2005 general election campaign.

Everyone has seen the recent coverage linking Labour fundraising to honours. But is it really as brazen as the media have suggested? To find out the truth, I have analysed donations to the Labour Party since 2001 in excess of £50,000 and the honours that the donors have received. The report is published today by The Bow Group, and is being sent to Deputy Assistant Commissioner John Yates, investigating Labour’s cash for honours scandal.

The results are extraordinary:

• A large donor to the Labour Party is 1,657 times more likely to receive an honour than a non-donor.
• Large Labour donors are 9,955 times more likely to receive a Knighthood than anyone else and 1,549 times more likely to receive an OBE.

Looking at these figures, it is very hard to avoid the conclusion that Labour has been blatantly selling honours and selling places in the House of Lords. The graphic below summarises the figures.

I have also looked at the average amount given to Labour by large donors in relation to the honours that they received. This leads to an “Honours Price List”. On average, a large donor who receives a peerage has given £1.07 million (or £2.65 million if you include Lord Sainsbury, a Minister). Those receiving a Knighthood have given £747,000 on average and those receiving a CBE £675,000. An OBE comes in at £552,000. It is incredible that the amount given scales so blatantly with the prestige of the honour. This further suggests Labour has been selling honours and selling places in the House of Lords.

We compared the prices that Labour appears to be charging with those charged by Lloyd George (inflation adjusted since 1922). By comparison to Lloyd George, Labour are offering good value for Peerages (which are now about half the price), charging a little less for a Knighthood but charging much more for OBEs, which Lloyd George gave out with particular liberality. The graphic below gives Labour’s Honours Price list, and compares it to Lloyd George’s.

Tony Blair came to office claiming to be “Whiter than white” and promising to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. But over the last nine years a pattern of behaviour has emerged at the very top of the Government that is venal, sleazy and unethical. This pattern of behaviour goes right back to 1997 and the Ecclestone donation, after which the Government changed policy in a way Ecclestone found helpful. Blair’s more recent attempt to circumvent his own disclosure rules using loans is particularly dishonest – one day he argues that full disclosure of donations is important to maintain standards in public life, and then the next day he deliberately disguises the Labour Party’s sources of cash.

This whole episode is serious. It debases and devalues the honours system, most recipients of which are deserving.  It is an insult to their hard work that it appears honours can be bought. It undermines the integrity of public life. It corrupts the independence and stature of the House of Lords, a legislative assembly, when membership appears to be for sale. It suggests a level of dishonesty and venality amongst our leaders that calls into question their fitness to govern honestly. The practice is illegal, and has been since 1925.

Urgent reform is needed to restore integrity to the system. Conferring honours should be handled by an “Independent Commission for Honours”, which should not include any current or former politicians or anyone who has held office or donated more than £5,000 to any political party. They should publish a set of criteria that are applied in deciding who will receive an honour and who will not.

Tony Blair came to office promising high standards in public life. In fact he has debased them by presiding over a party that appears to have sold honours and sold places in the House of Lords. The Conservative Party should become a powerful voice campaigning for reform and for real standards in public life – not Tony Blair’s phoney ones.

Download THE PRICE OF DISHONOUR.pdf and read the report on Chris' paper in this morning's Telegraph.