On Friday evening, Iain Martin from the Wall Street Journal broke the news that the Chancellor and Secretary of State for Work and Pensions were close to agreeing a compromise on welfare reform.

“Under the proposals, If IDS can deliver the multi-billion savings that the Treasury demands, close to £3 billion of the savings will then be ring-fenced for him to use for his welfare reform programme.”

Welfare reform is an important indicator in signalling how the Coalition will square the circle of having to deliver both budget cuts and long lasting reform. In one corner you have the Treasury, focused on cutting state spending. In the opposing corner is IDS, the ‘quiet man’ who has spent much energy contemplating how to end state dependency. In the middle there is a £110 billion annual spend, which has failed to deliver opportunity, respect or engagement.

It is an open secrete that IDS threatened to resign if George Osborne had announced a benefits freeze in June’s emergency budget. That IDS is being an iron-willed Secretary of State should not have come as a surprise to anyone. This is his chance to implement the vision he has been working so hard on in the last four years, through his think-tank, The Centre for Social Justice. It is understandable if IDS believes that David Cameron appointed him because our leader wanted IDS to ‘CSJ’ the system.

But, having said all that, we are not in 1997. There isn’t an over-heating financial sector that the Government can use as a never-ending cash machine to fund projects. Politics is the art of the possible and at the moment it is not possible for a non-ring fenced department to ignore its budget tightening responsibility. The state of the economy cannot be ignored otherwise the long-term consequences will be negative for all of us.

Compromise is key, and the news that IDS and George Osborne are close to agreeing a deal is important as it signals a possible path for the inevitable other disputes that will arise. Cuts without reform will not resolve the problems this country faces. Reform without cuts is pointless because if the state continues to head towards bankruptcy all the good work will eventually be undone.

David Cameron put climate change at the heart of his campaign to transform and modernise the Conservative Party. I don’t doubt his personal commitment or that of many other Ministers and MPs. However the same cannot be said for the entire Conservative Parliamentary Party, with a significant number of climate change sceptics on both front and backbenches.
 
Not long before the General Election, TimMontgomerie, a former CCHQ staffer and editor of the influential website Conservative Home, suggested that “80-90 per cent” of my party are “just not signed up” to the climate change agenda. His comments were backed up by a poll of Conservative candidates in the 250 most winnable seats conducted through his website before the election. Candidates were asked to rank 19 different policy priorities in order of importance. Britain’s carbon footprint came bottom.
 
It may sometimes be effective to shift the focus of the argument. Those who are sceptical about climate change and the need to cut GHG emissions may still accept theoverriding need for more investment in energy efficiency, thedesirability of new nuclear power stations and even of some forms of renewable energy because both help to cut our dependence on imported oil and gas. The dangers of being vulnerable to the whims of volatile foreign regimes that may not always be friendly unites climate change sceptics and enthusiastic greens alike.
 
We must persuade the public that it is in Britain’s economic interests to move to a low carbon economy faster than other countries, not least to give us a competitive edge. This will not be easy, but if the carbon price rises substantially as the world economy recovers and other nations get tougher with emitters, then we will have a very significant advantage if we have already invested in low carbon electricity generating capacity, low emission transport infrastructure and environmentally-friendly buildings.
Low carbon products and services will be a growth market in the medium to long term, as trends in the car industry already show.
 
Now is the time to invest in research and development of the products and services that will be in demand as the low carbon revolution takes place. Clean coal in particular offers immense international potential, and the Government should continue to prioritise the demonstration of carbon capture and storage.
 
The EU has a role to play in the big picture. If aligned with either China or India, it would easily outweigh America on the global stage. Imagine a common EU/China or EU/India standard for electricity generation or for buildings. The rest of the world would have to pay attention. Of course the EU’s approach to these issues may at present be poles apart from both China and India, but it must be worth at least exploring the possible benefits of bilateral agreements with those countries even if initially such agreements were only voluntary.
 
David Cameron is inheriting a far more difficult and complex situation than anyone foresaw. When that iconic photograph was taken of him dog sledding in Norway, en route to view the retreating icebergs, nobody had any idea of the looming global financial meltdown. His green enthusiasm in the early days of his leadership proved how the Conservatives had changed but those were very different times.
 
Nonetheless there is no going back now. One measure by which his Government will be judged is whether it accelerates the transformation of Britain to a low carbon economy.

Posted by Administrator on behalf of Tim Yeo MP. Tim is MP for South Suffolk, and chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee.

The full pamphlet, Green Gold, can be downloaded from the Tory Reform Group

Yesterday after PMQs, I had a text from a VERY non-political friend who said she thought that David Cameron’s description of Raoul Moat as a ‘callous murderer’ was outrageous and went far too far for a Prime Minister.

Today, the Facebook page which caused so much of more of the outrage has been taken down – not by Facebook but by the creator of it.

I was in Starbucks today and saw a woman – I would have said pretty well-off, she was buying sandwiches and coffee and lollies for her children – put a lolly in her handbag, pass one to each of her children and say to the barista that ‘Oh I have two lollies as well.’ Well no she didn’t, she had taken three. The person in front of me in the queue pointed out that she had also taken one and put it away, and the woman laughed off how ditzy she had been.

How many of us would have thought, it’s only 40p, Starbucks make plenty of money, they factor that in? But that’s not the point. The point is that it is not acceptable to steal, and part of how shoplifters can be stopped is if those who see them step in.

It is important that people speak up when they feel something is wrong. It is also important that people feel able to speak up when they feel something is wrong.

I think my friend was wrong when she said the Prime Minister shouldn’t have got  involved in the saga of this Facebook page. I think it’s absolutely right that our politicians lead from the front, do the right thing, and encourage the rest of us as well.

There are plenty of things politicians get wrong but on this, David Cameron is  right: societal pressure – from all sorts of different directions – is what will change society. Simply passing more laws isn’t the answer, and always expecting someone else to do it isn’t either. We all have to be prepared to think about what kind of society we want to live in, and be prepared on top of that to be part of making it happen.

The global moratorium on commercial whaling is under threat. The Japanese are pushing for the global ban on whaling to be lifted at a meeting of the International Whaling Commission in a few weeks time.

The threat is even greater because of EU rules that require all EU states to vote with one voice at IWC conferences.  Apparently, the Danes are threatening use EU rules to prevent EU states from voting for a continuation of the ban.  If a member state votes in a different way, then they risk a fine from the European Court of Justice.

This is barmy and puts arcane rules and regulations ahead of our commitment to preserving the whale population and our commitment to animal welfare.

We should be perfectly clear about this – the global ban on commercial whaling must continue. As this page shows, although there has been some recovery in the whale population of some species. Greenpeace say that:

“The blue whales of the Antarctic are at less than 1 percent of their original abundance, despite 40 years of complete protection. Some populations of whales are recovering but some are not.

Only one population, the East Pacific grey whale, is thought to have recovered to its original abundance, but the closely related West Pacific grey whale population is the most endangered in the world. It hovers on the edge of extinction with just over 100 remaining.”

Commercial whaling led the international whale population to the brink of catastrophe and it must not be allowed to resume. If faced with a choice between our commitments to animal welfare and preserving the whale population and our commitments to the EU, then we must choose animal welfare.

The Living Wage is an idea whose time has come.  Boris Johnson has carried on with the introduction of a Living Wage in London, following the tremendous campaign from London Citizens and Ken Livingstone’s original introduction of the idea.   Ed Miliband has made some kind of Living Wage central to his (so far very impressive) leadership campaign – a promise that will surely also be picked up by other leadership candidates.  James Purnell – a much missed voice in Parliament for radical ideas – has been campaigning heavily for a Living Wage since leaving office.

Although it is a shame that senior Labour politicians didn’t consider ideas such as a Living Wage and Low or High Pay Commission until they were virtually out of office, at least it is now on the political agenda.  Indeed, David Cameron used a Guardian column during the election campaign to name check the London living wage.

The idea, is of course, not a new one.  The 1928 Labour platform had a ‘Living Wage’ as its number 1 pledge.  A ‘Living Wage’ goes back, at the very least, to Victorian radical thought.  The campaign for a Living Wage deserves to be on political centre stage.  There is a strong moral, social and economic case for the Living Wage.

The moral case is clear.  The minimum wage has, in many areas, fallen behind the rising cost of living.  In an age of rising economic insecurity, where economic globalisation has had a detrimental effect on the take home pay of ordinary working people, low paid people are moving nearer to the poverty line.  Too many low paid workers are still being paid below what economists regard as the ‘poverty threshold wage.  One of the world’s richest societies should not have people being paid below the poverty threshold.

And this moral case leads entirely to the social case for the Living Wage.  Low pay means that people have less time to spend with their children and their families.  Low pay means that people have less time to get involved with their communities and play their part with the wider society.  Low pay and closeness to the poverty line has effects on people’s health, morale and family life.  If we genuinely believe in strengthening communities and empowering individuals, then a Living Wage should be an important part of making that happen.

There is also an economic case for a Living Wage.  Take the experience in London – as the Mayor of London argues, paying the Living Wage, “makes good business sense too.  What may be viewed to a company to be an unaffordable cost … should more often be viewed as a sound investment decision… Paying decent wages reduces staff turnover and produces a more motivated and productive workforce.”

A number of studies have supported the view that a Living Wage actually produces a more productive workforce and boosts the economy.  And that is without going into the fact that a Living Wage is bound to improve incentives to work and alter the perverse disincentives that result from low pay and a poorly designed tax system.

The case for a Living Wage seems clear.  It is both moral, social and economic.  I am sure that the Living Wage campaign will continue to gain force and momentum over coming years.