John Redwood MP: The people want the politicians to occupy the common ground - not the centre ground

John Redwood is the Conservative MP for Wokingham, and Leader of the Conservative Policy Group on Economic Competitiveness. Follow John on Twitter.

Mr Miliband has suggested that the much fancied centre of UK politics is moving to the left. Mr Blair and Mr Reid have denied any such thing. Labour are divided on whether they can shift leftwards safely or not.

Some Conservative members fear that the Coalition is dragging the centre to the left, thanks to the influence of the LibDems on Coalition rhetoric and policy. They want the Conservative leader, Mr Cameron, to be more Conservative. Some LibDems fear that UKIP is dragging the centre ground in the opposite direction, highlighting the issues of immigration and the EU which Lib Dems prefer to skate over.

So who is right? Does it matter?

John Redwood MP: Let's get back to the Coalition's original economic strategy

John Redwood is the Member of Parliament for Wokingham and Chairman of the Conservative Economic Affairs Committee.  Follow John on Twitter.

This is the sixth in ConservativeHome's series of posts counting down to the Autumn Statement. On Tuesday, Tim Montgomerie said that George Osborne's economic narrative is taking shape. On Wednesday, Peter Hoskin urged Mr Osborne to ditch his current fiscal rules, and Tom Frostick argued that the Chancellor must target wealth. And, yesterday, Andrew Lilico set out some of the international risks for the UK economy, and Paul Goodman called for an Affordable State.

I am a big fan of the original plans the Coalition sketched in the heady days of June 2010. They said they had come together to eliminate the large structural deficit they inherited from Labour. They would tame it, primarily by cutting spending plans, with just 20% of the reduction coming from more tax revenue. It was a great idea. Past experience here, in Canada, Sweden and elsewhere shows it  can work. The UK state was spending and borrowing too much. Growth would come from more rapid private sector expansion, fuelled by a sensibly loose money policy. It is still the right way to tackle the problems of the UK economy.

So what went wrong?  Why have we had a double dip recession and so little growth?  The Coalition did not do what it said. Instead of reducing planned spending to curb the deficit, they put up current spending in the early years of the strategy. Instead of keeping taxes at realistic levels, they put through tax rises or kept most of Labour’s late tax rises, giving the UK less competitive tax levels on employment, income and effort. They did with the Bank attempt an easy money policy, but the broken banks and the fashion for high prudence in regulation meant little of the newly created money found its way into the private sector to promote growth.

John Redwood MP: We need some common sense - not targets - on global warming

John Redwood has been MP for Wokingham since 1987 and chaired the Conservative Party's Economic Competitiveness Policy Group. He has held a number of ministerial and shadow cabinet roles and writes a regular blog.

We need some common sense over global warming. The failure of the world’s leaders to agree a target based approach in Copenhagen should come as no surprise. They were unable to do so at Kyoto, where the USA, China and India opted out. Some of the European countries which did sign have so far  failed to hit the targets they promised to meet.

The 2009 European Environment Report showed just five of the fifteen EU western member states already hitting their Kyoto targets. Countries like Spain, Italy and Canada experienced substantial rises in CO2 output in the early years of the Kyoto plans.

Some think a target-based approach is the answer. There are several problems with such a policy. There are no global sanctions against countries who sign up and then fail to hit the targets. Some states like China are reluctant to commit themselves to long range targets, as they see their growth and economic development as more important, and difficult to predict accurately. Some states like the European countries that have not hit their targets so far will sign up, but fail to deliver.

Most of these targets fall to be delivered by some future government at some date long after the next election, so governments can find it tempting to sign but to defer the action hitting the target would require. Many governments have in the past signed up to targets without having any detailed idea of who has to cut their carbon output. The targets require big changes of behaviour by many in the society, but governments find it difficult or unpalatable to force people to change their lifestyles to that extent.

John Redwood has been MP for Wokingham since 1987 and chaired the Conservative Party's Economic Competitiveness Policy Group. He has held a number of ministerial and shadow cabinet roles and writes a regular blog.

John Redwood MP: How to make the necessary cuts to public spending without cutting important services

John Redwood has been MP for Wokingham since 1987 and chaired the Conservative Party's Economic Competitiveness Policy Group. He has held a number of ministerial and shadow cabinet roles and as well as writing a regular blog, he has just co-authored, with Carl Thomson, a new Bow Group pamphlet, More for Less: Cutting Public Spending, Protecting Public Services.

The so called debate on public spending in recent years has generated enormous heat but little light. Labour has renamed all spending as "investment". It has claimed that the Tories always want to cut services when there is no shred of evidence to support this, and argued that any cut in spending amounts to a cut in service.

The aim has seemed to be to spend more regardless of cost and efficiency levels. In the heady days of spending growth so much money was hurled at the public sector that much of it went in wage and salary rises, in recruitment of people to jobs of questionable value. In some big services the extra money bought us lower productivity.

Now Labour has admitted we cannot go on like this. It is bizarre that they are proposing a Bill to try to stop themselves spending. The figures underpinning the bill are the most important political statement I have ever seen in my adult lifetime. Labour say that we need to cut public spending (or raise taxes) by almost £100 billion a year, reaching this level of cuts within four years. Even so, the deficit might still be running at the level it reached when a previous Labour government had to go to the IMF, unless economic recovery has by then curbed the cyclical deficit.

John Redwood MP: The myth of the G20 was that we needed the leaders to agree to do the same thing to address the very different crises in their respective countries

John Redwood has been MP for Wokingham since 1987 and was invited by David Cameron to chair the Conservative Party's Economic Competitiveness Policy Group. He has held a number of ministerial and shadow cabinet roles and writes a regular blog.

The G20 agenda was always going to be a bizarre mixture of items reflecting the very different perceptions and priorities of twenty different world governments, and of the other countries and international institutions in attendance.

The leaders were unsure whether to spend more of their time on discussing how to get out of the present international economic downturn, or on trying to prevent something similar happening again. They were more willing to discuss greater regulation and higher borrowing in the future, than how much stimulus to apply to the present.

The US and the UK were keenest to get others to spend and borrow more. No country was prepared to use the summit as a platform to offer tax cuts or spending increases above those already announced.

John Redwood MP: Freeing Britain to compete

Rt Hon John Redwood MP is Co-Chairman of the Economic Competitiveness Policy Group.  In this article for ConservativeHome he argues that a more enterprising Britain will also be a freer, greener and more compassionate Britain.

The winds of global competition are blowing strongly on the world’s economies. We are living through a massive shift in economic power, as the Asian economies led by China and India emerge as global manufacturers, service providers and traders with attractive offerings to the customers of the world.

These winds could power us to greater success, or they could destroy business and jobs at home if our economy is not well secured and supported by a government that understands the needs of enterprise. If we respond by creating the right conditions at home and by offering the right goods and services to these emerging markets, globalisation can be an opportunity for the UK rather than a threat.

The Government claims that the UK has done well over the last fifteen years, with steady growth and relatively low inflation, but the last decade has been good for the world economy as a whole, characterised by the two massively favourable trends of easy money and a disinflationary environment.

Despite these very favourable trends the UK has fallen down the league table of the most competitive economies. Our growth rate has been flattered by inward migration and conceals 5.4 million people of working age without jobs living on benefits.

Such global trends can not be relied on for an acceptable rate of growth. With the current uncertainty in world markets we should proceed on the basis that money will be tighter in the years ahead than during the last decade. We should also recognise that China and India will not continue to exert strong downward pressure on prices to the extent that they have in the last ten years. The UK and USA can not afford to ignore inflationary pressures brought about by easy money at home.