Dr Austen Morgan is a barrister at 33 Bedford Row Chambers.  He is the author of: Pretence: why the United Kingdom needs a written constitution, London 2023.

The abandonment of the English IRA victims’ claim, against Gerry Adams, being heard by Mr Justice [Jonathan] Swift in the high court in London, on the last listed day, came as a surprise.  There will be no judgment to debate (or appeal).  But the three ageing claimants had risked losing their costs’ protection.  And it was Gerry Adams – importantly – who ended the fight.

The context of the McCue Jury & Partners unusual tortious claim needs to be appreciated.  This was private law, against an alleged natural tortfeasor (the IRA having no legal existence).  And the context was the conservatives’ 2023 Northern Ireland legacy act (public law), which the feeble Starmer government set out to repeal and replace (now paused), in order principally to please the Irish government and reset relationships with the EU.

The three claimants (who gave evidence) – John Clark, Jonathan Ganesh and Barry Laycock – had been caught up respectively in the 1973 Old Bailey bombings, and the 1996 (London) Docklands and Arndale (Manchester) IRA attacks.  One was left in no doubt – listening to their testimonies – about the lifelong physical and especially mental injuries of innocent passersby.

Gerry Adams – who was cross-examined relentlessly over two days by Sir Max Hill KC, a former director of public prosecutions – told us a different story: not only was he not a member of the army council in 1973 and 1996, and therefore not personally responsible (arguably) for the bombings; but, having joined Sinn Féin in 1964, he did not join the new provisional IRA in 1969 – he went through the troubles of the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s as a political activist while others did the killing and were killed!

Memoir evidence was adduced from Seán MacStíofáin, the English-born IRA chief of staff, and William Whitelaw, the secretary of state, about the secret Cheyne Walk talks in 1972, facilitated by the RAF, where Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness were the youngest members of the Irish delegation; MacStíofáin, and especially Whitelaw, agreed that the UK government had negotiated with the IRA (not euphemistically with the republican movement).

Adams tried to allude, from the box, to the first Jonathan Swift, the Irish whig and hardly a republican, but his lordship was having none of this Irish familiarity and blather.

Adams was good on the historic crimes done Yeats’ Cathleen ni Houlihan (realized in 1902 by his unrequited love interest, Maud Gonne), even singing the praises of Dolours and Marian Price – the prison hunger-strikers after the Old Bailey bombing – who went on to oppose publicly the Irish Nelson Mandela (as Adams is characterised by some gushing identitarians).  Dolours, the older of the two, breached the republican code of omerta, by identifying Adams as her IRA commander, but the latter went again to gaol as an alleged dissident republican.

Closing submissions began on the Thursday of week two, and that is when the case started to go wrong.  Adams’ lawyers from Matrix chamber (including originally a certain Richard Hermer) had never tried to strike out the claim, one of the grounds for trying to do so being abuse of process because of the delays from 1973 and 1996 causing prejudice to Adams defence.

Observing from an overflow court, it seemed that the learned judge and Edward Craven KC for the defendant joined in confusing issues, when the question of the Limitation Act 1980 section 33 (discretionary exclusion – a statutory right – of time limit for actions in respect of injuries or death) should have been legally deconstructed.  (Adams had portrayed himself as the Irish peacemaker – laughably from the early 1970s at times – , and it is difficult to see how he was prejudiced as a defendant from 2022 after the acquiring of this historical reputation.)

On the Friday morning, having undoubtedly discussed matters with Adams, his legal team offered to ‘drop hands’ – essentially walk away from the court.  The claimants’ costs’ protection, granted by an earlier judge, had overnight become uncertain, because of the discussion of abuse of process.

The claimants’ solicitors (judging by their press release) are critical of the judge – the word unfairness has been uttered – but they would professionally have been required to bring their barristers and lay clients together on the last day on the risk of Adams demanding his not-inconsiderable legal costs.

The really perplexing thing about the case, is why Adams chose to fight in the royal courts of justice.  He had two alternative options.  One, he could have refused to leave his ‘Ireland’.  The claimants securing a punny judgment in default in London would have permitted him to lecture them about the need to move on.  Second, he could have taken ‘the fifth’ (in US speak): come into court and answered; on the advice of counsel, I decline respectfully to answer all questions on the ground that I might incriminate myself – the no comment defence.

Adams has been accused frequently of hubris.  Members of the public, and the very many journalists in court, heard Sir Max Hill’s seemingly endless flow of questions and Adams staccato ‘not true’ replies, where every witness – from rehabilitated republicans to military intelligence officers, anonymous and identified – was contemptuously dismissed as part of a UK conspiracy of liars out to do down the bearded one.

I learned something from the two days of cross-examination.  Perversely, Adams seemed to want to acknowledge the demonic figure created in the minds of his critics who had sworn to tell the truth.  That is why he came to London.  But in his consistent denials – counter-interrogation training anyone? – he turned himself into the major victim of the UK occupiers of his country, the habitué squatting in his mind for decades.  He was fighting still, and selflessly, for Cathleen ni Houlihan.

The claimants’ perpetrator was really the victim, according to the defendant.  An English high court judge would not be allowed to determine Gerry Adams’ involvement in the 1973 bombings, if not the 1996 ones.  That is why he dropped hands.  But, like the heroic victim, he was prepared to endure the four years of ‘torture’ constituted by the claim.  That is why he sat in court for two weeks, with anti-national types (in his judgment) rubbing shoulders with his close-body protection.

Martin McGuinness – who claimed unconvincingly to have left the IRA after Bloody Sunday – acknowledged his IRA membership on his gravestone in Derry in 2017 (having enjoyed Lord Saville’s earlier grant of immunity and still not broken his IRA oath).

Will Gerry Adams (in the continuing absence of a united Ireland by consent and still maintaining the code of omerta), then give us the finding of fact we might have obtained, but did not get, from Mr Justice Swift?

Rachel Reeves has changed her mind. Since becoming Chancellor of the Exchequer she has come to realise the British state cannot compensate people for every misfortune they may suffer as they go through life.

There is no money, as an earlier Treasury minister confided on leaving office in 2010. But this is a lesson which successive Governments have been reluctant to proclaim.

Within a few sentences of starting her statement yesterday in the Commons on the economic impact of the war in the Middle East, Reeves declared that the Government will be sticking to “our ironclad fiscal rules”.

By making this promise, she sought to reassure the bond market. Her officials will have impressed on her how vital it is to do so.

As the Shadow Chancellor, Mel Stride, pointed out in his reply, Britain now has the highest borrowing costs in any major advanced economy, with gilt yields higher than those of Greece and Morocco.

Our public finances are so rickety that we are each year paying over £100 billion in interest on our debt. We would be in extreme peril if we tried to run an even larger deficit, and with the word “ironclad” Reeves indicated that she knows this.

If she had gone on to take the House and the wider public into her confidence, she would deserve credit for honesty, and might have wrested back the political initiative.

For no political party is yet being quite straight with the voters about this. Everywhere one finds a disinclination to express inconvenient truths, a sense that discretion is the better part of valour.

Reeves could have seized the initiative, and thrown the Conservatives off balance, by announcing that it is quite wrong to go on with the public finances in so shaky a condition that we have nothing to fall back on in an emergency.

Once the Government demonstrated both by its words and its actions that it recognises this, our borrowing costs would quite quickly come down.

A virtuous circle could begin, and a start could be made on tax reform, including the removal of various cliff edges which act as a disincentive to earn more, to expand a small business, or indeed to look for a job at all.

Reeves instead tried to justify the change in her position by attacking the Conservatives:

“As we respond to this crisis, we must learn from the mistakes of the past.

“The previous Government pushed up borrowing, interest rates, inflation and mortgage costs with an unfunded, untargeted package of support under Liz Truss that gave support to the most wealthiest of households.”

One could tell from the faces of Labour MPs (see the photograph above) as they listened to Reeves how depressing they found her statement. The Government feels compelled to make gestures of help: it has offered £53 million to be distributed among low-income households which depend on heating oil.

Gavin Robinson (DUP, Belfast East) pointed out that Northern Ireland’s share of this sum would amount to £34 per household, and that there is no data to target the support.

Simon Hoare (Con, North Dorset) observed that Dorset Council’s share of the money is £474,000, “which really will not touch the sides”.

We found ourselves invited by the Chancellor to enter a world of futile gestures, where the Government pretends to help, without actually being able to do anything that would make a noticeable difference.

Reeves’s predecessor as Chancellor, Sir Jeremy Hunt (Con, Godalming and Ash), said:

“Could I gently ask the Chancellor to be less partisan at a time of crisis? If she brings before the House difficult measures that are right for the country, she will have the support of the whole House, but if she is partisan, she will not.”

This was advice Reeves was unable to follow. She uttered no national rallying cry about uniting round difficult measures.

The Father of the House, Sir Edward Leigh (Con, Gainsborough), suggested:

“Is there not a sensible, middle-of-the-way approach here? We should by all means proceed with green energy—such as offshore wind, in which we lead the world, in the North Sea off the Lincolnshire coast—but we should also keep an open mind about new extraction from the North Sea.”

Reeves could not agree to keep an open mind on this, for at Energy questions, held just before her statement, Ed Miliband, Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, had once again shown that his mind remains firmly closed to the possibility of new extraction from the North Sea.

Miliband suggests by his haughty demeanour that he considers himself cleverer and better informed than anyone else. This could be true, but does not, unfortunately, mean he has better judgement.

Tony Blair used to convince Middle England that he must be sound because at frequent intervals he annoyed and distressed Labour MPs. Sir Keir Starmer, Reeves and Miliband instead go out of their way to appease Labour MPs, with the result that they look narrow and partisan at the very moment when the nation might unite, as Hunt said, round difficult measures.

For one day under Liz Truss as Prime Minister the ten year UK government borrowing rate of interest hit 4.38 per cent. Thirty year money cost 4.8 per cent. The government did not actually borrow at these rates.

The Bank of England changed its policy from selling government bonds to buying  them again and the interest rate subsided as the bonds rose in price in relief.

These longer term rates of interest are settled by the bond market. When the market loses confidence in the government and the Bank, and or fears inflation will rise, bond prices fall as more want to sell than buy. When the markets think the government is controlling the amount of debt sensibly and inflation is under control the price of bonds rises as more want to buy.

The prices of the very long bonds change a lot to change the interest rates. If the government borrowed £100 through  a 1 per cent bond with no repayment date at a price of £100, it would pay the holder £1  of interest every year. If the market then decides the interest rate should go up to 2 per cent because it is concerned  about developments, then that £100 bond can only be sold on to another owner at £50 or half price, so the continuing £1 of interest being paid is then 2 per cent of its new value.

When markets forced up the interest rates in 2022 Rachel Reeves said Liz Truss had crashed the economy. Rachel Reeves  said 4.38 per cent for ten year money was too high and would leave the government paying too much interest. It would also mean dearer mortgages and company loans whose interest levels reflect the government borrowing rates.

So we have to report today in her own words that Rachel Reeves has crashed the economy more seriously and for far longer than Liz Truss did. Today the ten year rate is at 4.95 per cent and the thirty year rate at 5.6 per cent, rates 13-16 per cent higher than 2022.  Indeed the Truss effect was so short lived no lasting damage was done. Rachel Reeves has presided over 10 year and 30 year rates higher than the worst day of Liz Truss for most of the last fifteen months. She has been borrowing large sums at these rates and lumbering future taxpayers with heavy bills to pay the elevated interest charges.

She seems unwilling to accept this, though her own words in 2022 condemn her actions since. She seems unaware of the role she has played in driving down the price of these bonds and therefore driving up the longer term rates of interest. We see the results of her work in last week’s withdrawal of many mortgage offers, as mortgage banks seek to increase the rates they are going to charge borrowers.

There are three main reasons why she has lost control of the bond markets. She has put up public spending and borrowing too much. The market worries about just how much she plans to borrow over this Parliament. It will mean massive new bond issues in excess of what savers are willing to lend at the old prices.

The market is alarmed that she put inflation up from the 2 per cent she inherited to nearly double as a result of allowing large managed price rises for water, energy, rail fares and Council taxes. The  government decided to allow large rises in public sector and utility costs and allowed some of that to be passed on in price rises. Government policy is to import much more of our energy, accelerating the shut down of domestic oil, gas, coal and fossil fuel electricity. The current world energy crisis leaves the UK badly exposed to having to pay ultra high prices for imports in a world of shortages.

The market is also concerned that instead of delivering faster growth as promised the government has slowed our growth almost to a standstill. Higher taxes on jobs, on family farms, on business premises, on producing and using energy have led to many business closures, lost jobs and less activity. As growth slows the state has to borrow more. Tax revenues are less with no growth, and  more people are out of work needing benefits so the government deficit goes up. The state has to issue more bonds to pay the bills.

This leaves the government in a bind. They would like to cushion consumers from the surge in imported energy prices, but do not have the money to do so. They want to reassure the bond markets that the deficit is under good control, but economic developments mean it is not. As consumers pay more for their energy they have to cut back on other things, slowing the economy more. The deficit rises. As the bond market takes fright so interest rates go up. People have to pay more for their mortgages and companies more for their loans. That can cause a further reduction in growth.

There are no good options once the government is in such a doom loop. The best course is to cut out wasteful and less desirable spending before the bond market insists on spending  cuts as it did to past Labour governments in 1975-6 and in 2008-9.

The government needs to set out a growth plan which will work, as its present one is delivering the opposite. It needs to take the cost of living pressures seriously, commencing by getting value for money in the public sector and keeping down state and managed prices.

An easy option is to allow more oil and gas extraction in the UK, easing the need for imports and bringing in large extra tax revenues from products that are very heavily taxed. The investment would also create more well paid jobs. Cancelling the proposed fuel tax rise this autumn and reducing the current tax  rate to allow for the extra VAT coming in as a result of higher fuel prices would also help.

A necessary tougher option is to find ways to restore lost public sector productivity, which has cost us at least £20bn of extra spending for no extra output. Is it so difficult for this government to get us back to 2019 levels of public sector efficiency?

The sooner the government acts the better it will be. We cannot afford current levels of borrowing and cannot afford current levels of interest rates on the new borrowing. The two go together. Controlling spending, boosting growth and raising public sector productivity combine to ease the pressures. Failure to act could end in a bigger bond market sell off and great difficulty in the government borrowing to pay all those spiralling bills.

Peter Bedford is a qualified Chartered Account, having spent 17 years in industry, prior to his election as the Conservative MP for Mid Leicestershire at the 2024 General Election.

Peter Bedford spoke to the 2026 Freedom Festival, hosted by the Margaret Thatcher Centre, at the University of Buckingham.

I was born and raised, with my two younger brothers, by my single mother.

Conservatism, Thatcherism, let alone engagement with the political process was not something we as a family engaged with. But it was certainly the Thatcherite instincts of Aspiration, Opportunity, and Hard-work that has allowed me to ‘get on’ – despite my humble and challenging upbringing.

Sadly, those on the political left, who subscribe to identity politics, may look at me, a mixed-race, working-class lad from a single parent family and wonder why I am a Conservative.

Mrs Thatcher just got it didn’t she?

She changed the Conservative Party from acceptance of ‘managed decline’ to a party of optimism and aspiration. She understood that it doesn’t matter who you are or where you are from; it’s what you do with your life that matters. I was certainly not walking the streets of Eton or Harrow in my youth.

She challenged the typically Conservative assumption of hierarchy and opened up the party to people like me.

She believed in aspiration; something that should sit at the very heart of every Conservative MPs philosophy.

I believe in people from all backgrounds: Earning a few bob, through hard work. Going out and spending it and being proud that they are able to do so. And why shouldn’t people be proud of economic success, particularly when they’ve come from modest beginnings?

There should be no boundaries, be it class, creed, colour; everyone should be able to climb the ladder as high as their talents will take them.

Her steadfast belief in freedom is something I hold at the very core of my own Conservatism. That is why I was proud to vote against what I saw as a draconian and misguided smoking ban. We all know smoking is harmful. But Government should trust adults to make decisions for themselves.

As a new MP I have been amazed by the sheer scale of waste I see, day in, day out in Westminster and Whitehall. From the sprawl of arm’s length-bodies to the vast expansion of the public sector – The British state needs a reset.

When Mrs Thatcher came to office: Britain was in decline. Un-democratic Trade Unions dominating industry, inflation out of control, strike after strike, and a dangerous dependency on the state. We had become a country forced to go cap in hand to the IMF. And as we all know:

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

That is why the Thatcher revolution was needed and is needed again, now more than ever.

Thatcherism sparked two great transformations. First a boom in social mobility. Rooted in freedom it gave people, especially those from modest backgrounds, the chance to shape their own future. Through Enterprise Schemes, through lower taxes, through the Right to Buy millions moved from dependency to ownership, gaining not just property, but also, a pride and a stake in society.

And second a renewed sense of national pride. Mrs Thatcher ensured that Britain was no longer the “sick man of Europe.” The Falklands showed we would stand up for our values.  And from my own visit there last year, her legacy still resonates, and she alongside other Western Allies, such as President Reagan, Britain helped bring the Cold War to a close. From the fall of the Berlin Wall to the opening of the first McDonalds in Moscow, these were not just symbolic moments, but victories for freedom over tyranny.

So, even in today’s bleak times: why can’t we reignite that spirit?

Even Tony Blair recognised the success of Thatcherism. By reforming Clause IV and actually, embracing enterprise: New Labour accepted that they could not take Britain back to the 1970s. Within the Conservative Party there are also encouraging signs.

The 2024 intake is rediscovering a more Thatcherite voice: championing a free, entrepreneurial and property-owning democracy.

But we are only mere foot soldiers. I am glad that Kemi is keeping right on – refusing to drift back towards the bland malaise of centrist fence-sitting. Because as we all know that standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous; you get knocked down by the traffic from both sides.

But what is clear, is that for Britain to rediscover its sense of purpose we do need leadership like Thatcher brought. We need a leader that believes in conviction politics and is not to be pulled from pillar to post by Civil Servants. We need a leader that will be thoughtful in how they carry out their policies. We need a leader that is not a technocrat and is not afraid to make the bold decisions that they believe are right for the country.

We need to restore these values to be at the heart of British politics.

Because Britain today needs a State that is: Better, not Bigger. A state that is smarter in how it acts, and more restrained in what it does.One that supports those in genuine need but never creates dependency.

One that serves the public, not one that is driven by bureaucracy, the Civil Service or unelected bodies that stand in the way of growth. We must end the culture of waste and inefficiency, where taxpayers’ money is too often funnelled into Quangos whose sole purpose is seemingly to deliver little and block much.

And alongside that we must lift the burden on working people. Not by imposing stealth taxes or freezes to personal tax thresholds, but by simply allowing people to keep more of what they earn. And by rewarding responsibility, encouraging saving, and trusting individuals to make decisions about their own futures.

A strong nation and economy can never, ever, be built on dependency. We must stand firm behind businesses from family farms to high-growth start-up. From local enterprises to global investors Britain should and could be the best place in the world to start, grow and succeed in business. This means we will back our farmers and other family businesses, ease the pressure on employers, and create a tax system that rewards investment not punishes it.

Because when business succeeds Britain succeeds.

We must have the courage to cut back unnecessary regulation. We did not take back control from the European Union only to reimpose barriers to growth at home.

So, as a country the choice before us is clear:

We can continue the path of higher taxes, greater state control and declining ambition.

Or we can choose a different path. One of pride in our nation, aspiration, personal responsibility, enterprise, and of course freedom.

Let us get out there and tell others that Britain must be more dynamic, more self-sufficient and more confident.

And perhaps then we will look back at the 2030s as a political revolution with roots in the one Mrs Thatcher oversaw in the 1980s.