Incisive and topical campaigns and commentary on today's issues and tomorrow's problems

On Wednesday I met leading BBC people at the Commons. They told us of their commercial successes with Dr Who and Strictly Come dancing, and tried to whet our appetite for their Christmas schedules with a long advert for their leading programmes.

I asked them how they defined public service broadcasting? They said they saw their popular commercial shows as a crucial part of that, yet these shows could just as easily have been invented by ITV and shown on a commercial channel.  Many are sold to commercial channels elsewhere in the world to be shown. I am still at a loss to know what their definition of public service is, and how it differs from Downton Abbey or ITV News. Why is East Enders public service, and Coronation Street commercial?

The BBC has always experienced a difficult dilemma over public service definitions. If public service is educational or uplifting programmes for a minority, it runs the risk of the majority no longer wishing to pay for it by a tax. If it is very popular programmes to keep the majority on board, it is difficult often to distinguish these from commercial product.Why does that need a poll tax?

I raised with them a more interesting issue which has often been raised here. How do they think tv will evolve in the years ahead, as more and more programmes and content is delivered by internet? Will they reach a point where many more people no longer watch any live tv, and so they will claim they should not have to pay a tv licence?

The BBC management recognised the issue, and said come the next dialogue about the licence fee they might need to reconsider the definition of the taxable service. That should be an interesting debate.

Free enterprise offers us the hope of a better tomorrow. Conservatives like me want more people to succeed, more people to enjoy rising living standards, more people to own homes and shares and other items of value. My opponents’ caricature that Conservatives promote low pay for the many and greater inequality for the few is the opposite of the truth. Conservatives want greater prosperity for all, but accept there will continue to be inequalities in a free society.

Many socialists, in contrast, want to make us more equal by taxing those who are successful more heavily. They wish to regulate the private sector more, take more of its profits away, and punish those who work hard and pioneer new ways of doing and making things. The price of greater equality is far less freedom. They think this a price worth paying. When taken to extremes you end up in a world like communist eastern Europe prior to 1990. Even in such egalitarian societies the powerul political elite make sure they escape the privations of the many, with a privileged lifestyle that money could not buy.

I am not a natural legislator. I think we have too many laws, not too few. I am happier repealing laws than inventing new ones. MPs have in boxes full of lobby inspired campaigns to tax people and companies more, to stop them doing things, or to make them do things they are reluctant to do. The friendly socialist responds to these pressures by offering more tax breaks, subsidies and public spending programmes to move the world in the direction they want. The unfriendly socialist prefers to do it by criminalising more conduct and taxing more revenue.

One of the most pleasant surprises I have had doing the job of an MP is to discover that jealousy is not such a popular or universal emotion as many socialists seem to believe. Voters did not queue up to abolish by ballot the remaining grammar schools, even though most of them knewtheir children would not benefit. Many voters accept that a good entrepreneur who has worked hard and taken risks to make his or her money should be able to enjoy a decent proportion of the fruits of their labours. Most voters want to be able to pass some money on to the next generation, rather than wishing to make each generation start again with the state pocketing the gains of the dying. Most people want to own their own home and are pleased if it goes up in value. There is no desire for more people to be tenants of the state.

It is true that jealousy can come into some popular views, allied sometimes to a sense of fairness. Many share my view that state employees, whether in a subsidised bank or a great quango, should not be rewarded as if they were in the private sector on a performance bonus taking big risks with private money and subject to sudden loss of job if they get it wrong. Others dislike high pay however it is earned and whoever pays for it. Some dislike high pay selectively, condemning it for bankers but accepting it for footballers or the Governor of the Bank of England.

As a believer in free enterprise I am an optimist. During my life so far I have seen many people and whole societies become much richer and better served by the power of innovation and by the energy of the marketplace. We have been liberated from washday by the washing machine, from long walks to work and play by the car, from loneliness and boredom by the tv and the internet. Many more people now have better paid jobs, and no longer have the back breaking physical work of their grandparents.

             The documents connected to the Autumn Statement include an interesting table which shows that the majority of the additional deficit reduction the OBR is now forecasting will come from increased tax revenue.

              In 2014-15 an additional £9.6bn of tax is 77% of the extra deficit reduction (compared to the March position). In 2015-16 £13.2bn of extra tax is 79% of the extra deficit cut, and  in 2016-17 ££14.5bn of extra tax is 91%.(OBR Table 1.3 p.14).

              Some of this revenue is the result of the higher growth forecasts, but some of it comes from the so called anti avoidance measures. These are tax rises of one sort or another, altering the way existing  taxes are levied. The government aims to get more tax from people and companies who are currently paying the correct amount under current tax law, so they are in that sense tax rises.

           Many will say because they are called anti avoidance measures they are all justified. Nonetheless these new tax measures need examination to see who they take more tax from, and what economic impact that will have. If you stop a legal way of avoiding tax you may also stop certain types of economic activity that depended on the favourable tax treatment.

          Meanwhile the Chancellor correctly underlined the fact that the structural deficit remains obstinately high. The reason for that is very simple. Current public spending has continued to rise in real terms, with a starting position in 2010 where there was an inbuilt large structural deficit from high spending.

             If these forecasts are correct, the UK state debt (excluding pensions) peaks at 80% of our GDP instead of at 85% under the March 2013 Budget plans. Most of this is down to these further increases in tax.

          As expected, the Autumn Statement produced a new independent official forecast for  the economy. The OBR expects growth to be faster, and extra borrowing lower as a result. By 2018-19 the government aims to be repaying debt.

            The forecast also anticipates a substantial increase in new housing,  with modest house prices rises peaking at 7% in 2015-16. Real house prices remain below the 2007-8 high throughout the next five years.

           Public spending continues to go up in cash terms, though at a slower pace than before. Next year the government aims to spend £12.7bn more , after a £15.9bn increase this year in adjusted Total Managed Expenditure. Net additional borrowing falls from £111 bn this year to £96bn next year.

              Savers will be pleased to know the official forecaster expects short term and longer term interest rates to rise steadily over the next five years. They pencil in 4.2% on average gilt stocks and 3.1 % for short rates by 2018-19. They foresee share prices rising gradually every year, consumer spending to rise, and commercial property prices to rise gently as well. Real incomes start growing again from 2014.

               They are likely to be right about the direction of travel for the next couple of years. Their 2010 forecast was far too optimstic whilst their Budget 2013 forecast was far too  pessimistic. Maybe this one will be nearer the truth.

                I would be surprised if things turned out as steadily as they expect after 2015. Normally adjustments take place more rapidly than officials recognise.  Interest rates on government debt have already risen more quickly than official forecasts anticipated.

              The individual decisions in the Auutmn Statement did not make much difference to the figures. The big changes have occurred thanks to faster growth, bringing  down the likely extra debt burden substantially. By 2017-18 debt is estimated to be £80 bn lower than in the March 2013 forecast.

Conservatives are in many ways better placed to cut poverty than Labour. If you are keen to let more people succeed, to build businesses and create jobs, you will do more to eliminate poverty than if you want to tax enterprise into submission. If you believe in competitive markets, you offer people more choice of good value goods to boost their living standards, and more opportunity of employment.

The Conservative assault on poverty revolves around helping equip everyone to have a job, and creating the economic conditions where more jobs are created for them.

It is also based on the idea of wider ownership. One of the big divides in our society is between those who own their own home and those who do not. Helping more people to own their own home brings to more people the wealth effect of home ownership. In old age there will be no rent to pay. There is an asset to support them should they need to go into a nursing home, or an asset to pass onto their children.

Ensuring more people have pension and other savings will also erode the them and us culture that divides our society into those who have some financial wealth and those who have none.

The Autumn Statement needs to allow more people to succeed and enterprise to flourish. It needs to lift spirits, not threaten more taxes and controls. I will write again today when we have seen the details.

I voted with other MPs today in support of Zac Goldsmith’s Bill for the recall of MPs. We won the vote, but the three main front benches do not agree with the measure, so it is unlikely to become a law.

This year’s Autumn Statement will come just before the end of the year, on a wintry December 5th. It should show us that this time the economy is performing better than the official forecasts. Tax revenue will be higher, the deficit lower, and output higher than the OBR thought in the spring. This gives the Chancellor room to accelerate the deficit reduction strategy, with or without tax cuts at the same time.

He could make his job easier still in cutting both the deficit and taxes by taking more action to curb the growth of spending. Cancelling or delaying HS2 for a few years could save £16bn over the next Parliament, and a bit in preparatory costs in this. Cutting the growth out of the Overseas Aid budget would be popular, whilst still leaving plenty for emergencies like Syria and the Philippines tsunami. Tightening the rules on eligibility to benefits for recently arrived migrants could also make a contribution. Helping more people to own a home couild cut the budget for subsidised rental housing.

The economy does need tax cuts. Individuals and families need tax cuts so they have more spending power. I assume there will be a further increase in the Income Tax threshold, as that seems to be the only tax cut that Lib Dems will readily accept. It is also time the Chancellor looked again at the threshold for 40% tax, which cuts in too soon on the income scale.

We also need cuts in capital taxes to stimulate more activity. Capital Gains Tax at 20% would raise more revenue for the next couple of years than keeping it at 28%. Changing Stamp Duty so the higher rates only apply to that part of the purchase price over the threshold would cost some revenue, but would stimulate home buying and ownership which in turn will stimulate housebuilding.

Small business is still feeling squeezed. Some relief on business rates would be a welcome way of helping them.

In 2013-14 the government plans to increase UK total public spending by 7% or £47bn. (Red Book 2013 Total Managed Expenditure). If you adjust for changes to the Post office Pension fund, the increase is still £19bn. Both current and capital spending is now rising, after the Labour cuts to capital spending earlier this decade which the Coalition largely implemented. Current spending has been rising in real terms under the current government, though at a slower pace than in the previous decade.

The continued buoyancy of public spending explains why the deficit remains persistently high, with planmned extra borrowing this year at £10 bn a month. The news that the economy is now growing faster than forecast means there should be welcome news of lower borrowing this year as tax receipts increase.

The UK in 2007 before the crash was already a high borrowing country. The cyclically adjusted deficit was 5% that year, compared to the US at 3%, Germany at 1% and Canada making debt repayments. The great recession of 2008-9 made the financial position much worse. The present government now expects it to take until near the end of the next Parliament to stop the additional borrowing.

As the last Red Book showed, the UK economy has been one of the better performers since the crash, with gross value added recovering faster than Euroland and considerably faster than countries like Italy and Spain. The USA has performed better, thanks to cheaper energy, faster deficit reduction through spending cuts and a stronger banking system to finance a private sector led recovery.The UK’s figures will look better still in the next statement, given the srong upturn in growth.

Tomorrow I will look at the action I would like to see to curb spending and cut taxes.

At the start of the Spectator debate this evening 89 were in favour of fracking, 37 were against and 44 had no view.
By the end of the debate 112 were in favour, 38 against and 15 abstained.
There was an air of realism in the hall about how the Uk can earn its living in future, and the requirement for more domestic energy supplies to meet our power needs.

From the early days of the Labour party and the Union movement its leaders faced a conflict. They said they wanted greater equality, but their Union supporters wanted higher pay for higher skills. Those who wanted to create, extend and defend differentials, higher pay for more skilled working, won the battle of ideas.

The Union movement became a means to defend craft and skill levels and to ensure that they gained extra pay for them. At times these were good, ensuring skill and quality in the work. At times this acted as a restraint on innovation and competition, preventing others from offering their labour without the qualification or Union membership to back their search for work.

Today the Labour movement lives with its contradictions. Labour does not wish to see the professional restrictions on legal or medical work pulled down, accepting the need for long training and up to date skills. In turn they accept the case for much higher pay for people who have these qualifications. They accept the need for higher pay for shop floor and senior management, and pay their own Union bosses well above the average of the workers they represent.

It is true the Labour and Union movement wishes to move lower pay up – as do many of us who are not part of their political movement. It is also true that in office, like any other government, Labour accepts they have to do this at an affordable pace for taxpayers. As lower pay moves up, they are also normally keen to increase higher pay as well, as the doctrine of the differential is engrained in their thinking.

It is wrong of Labour to claim they are the party of equality. They are more truly the party of differentials, the very opposite approach. They usually support more and more regulation of jobs, requiring more training and qualifications. This in turn restricts the supply of labour to these chosen occupations, and forces the differentials up compared to people in low skill jobs.