One of the paradoxes of some socialists is they like football. You would have thought they would dislike most features of the way it is run in the UK . It has more of what they call the “excesses” of capitalism than most sectors and companies. It revels in large inequalities of income and wealth, sacks people frequently and divides people and teams into extremes of success and failure.

Socialists dislike large income inequalities. Players and managers of top clubs are paid unbelievable seven figure packages whilst caterers, security staff and admin are on modest wages.

Socialists dislike favoured treatment for talent. Football treats stars so much better than others, and is hard on those with less skill or luck in games.

Socialists dislike employers exercising disproportionate power. Clubs literally buy and sell players as if they were just assets and liabilities.

Socialists dislike billionaires who keep money offshore. Football clubs are keen to attract such backing.

Socialists (and non socialists) dislike exploitation of monopoly power over prices. Famous clubs can charge a lot for tickets and merchandise.

Socialists dislike people being sacked. Football managers who have worked hard and met their contract terms can often be sacked for losing too many games.

Socialists dislike people and institutions being divided into successes and failures. That is the main purpose of every game.

It is going to take regulation to change all that. If the new Regulator does seek to alter some parts of the current formula the UK could lose talent and money to overseas. Who is for a league with equal money for each club topped up by tax revenues? Who wants to subsidise losing teams? Who favours an end to “cruel “ knock out competitions? Who wants more protection for managers, and an end to bidding rounds for players? Regulation could easily drive money and talent away.An extreme culture based around individual and team performance is what fans like and is what makes the UK league such a success with world audiences.

It’s bad enough having an international lawyer instead of a Prime Minister ss head of the government. Even worse when we have an inept one.

There are no legal uncertainties about the Chagos. The UK paid for them when Mauritius became independent. They were never owned by an independent Mauritius, They are UK territory.

The ICJ has no jurisdiction over the UK and the Chagos. When we signed up to the Court we ruled out the court taking cases about the Uk and the Commonwealth. Worrying about a possible loss of an ICJ case is therefore a nonsense.

The PM told the House there are security reasons to change ownership of the base. For all these years of UK ownership there have been no security problems. If Mauritius takes over what is to stop them occupying the other islands in ways which could impede free use of the base? As a non nuclear country might they want to impose rules over nuclear powered and armed vessels? What would stop them seeking to jack up the terms for the lease at a later date? As a friend of China what information might they pass on that had learned as freeholder of a major US naval base.

Priti Patel and Nigel Farage made the right points yesterday in the Commons ignoring Nigel’s muddle  over which Court it is that Starmer worries about. The government must back down . We cannot afford the cost and are stupid to give away a freehold we legally own.The Minister was a disgrace, refusing to answer how much they have offered, what the main terms of the lease are, or how there are any security problems with our ownership.

The UK official establishment cannot resist returning to negotiations with the EU. Why can’t they learn that the EU has no wish to offer us anything worth having. In or out, they see us as a soft touch for more money, an open market to sell to, and a source of fish. They see us as a competitive threat they must control by lop sided rules and regulations that impede us. As Single market Minister when they “completed” the single market I saw from the inside how they undertook a power grab and wrote laws designed to advantage large French and German companies and institutions. They even tried to put through a law governing stock exchanges which would have made illegal the biggest European exchange, our market in London. I did get that toned down.

EU aims this tine are greedy and unhelpful. They wish to carry on denuding our waters of fish with ultra large industrial trawlers, damaging the marine environment and preventing growth of our fishing fleet in more appropriate vessels. They want to re invent freedom of movement for young people. They want to control us with more of their over the top laws. They want more money for their programmes. They want to bind us into their inadequate defences more, and sell us more weapons systems.

The Uk pathetically just seeks “friendship” and closer ties. Maybe the government insists on easier rules for visiting musicians as the EU so far seeks to impede its citizens hearing  our talent, and maybe the government gets a vet certificate or two removed from our cheese exports. The paucity of the asks is embarrassing.

I was the only MP over Brexit who made the case for a clean exit, placing trade with the  EU on the most favoured nation basis of WTO rules. Anything else was bound to come at too high a price. I did not vote for the final  deal and expressed strong criticism of the outrageous treatment of Northern Ireland and the failure to take back control of our fish. The UK paid the EU too much money over a long transition for a free trade deal. Now we have one there is no need to try to improve it when the EU is only interested in making it worse for the UK..

The government says it cares about the cost of living, yet it specialises in putting it up.

It has  put through two further hikes in energy prices, now  controlled by the state, despite oil and gas prices coming down from past peaks.

It will put up rail fares by more than inflation to cover some part of its large wage awards to train drivers.

With the Regulator it is allowing very large rises in water company bills.

It has helped put up mortgage rates by borrowing too much and forcing up longer term interest rates.

Now it is allowing 5% increases in Council Tax, with 6 Councils allowed up to 10%. Its new grant formula pushes up Council spending and the tax in Councils that have done a better job in keeping Council tax down.

Why does it allow Councils to buy properties and utilities with taxpayer money. These so called investments often go wrong leaving Council fax payers to pay for big losses. Why are Councils given money for schemes like the £5.5 m road painting  and roundabout worsening scheme Lib Dem Wokingham forced on us?

 

For two years there has been no growth in Germany. Once the big motor of  the EU economy ,Germany drifts in and out of recession. Its once great petrochemical, steel and engineering industries are hit by dear energy and plenty of regulation. Its car industry is being coshed by ill judged net zero policies.

The EU has designed an economic policy around rushed moves to net zero that seem designed to undermine the German economy. It is a bizarre act of self harm as German money is crucial to pay EU bills. There  is no growth to be had out of tweaking the EU/UK  trade deal.  Whyb does our Prime Minister think we need to copy and submit  to the EU policy? Why so many meetings with Chancellor Scholz who is about to be flung out of office for economic incompetence if the polls are right?

The UK needs to reinforce its huge success in exporting services, which sell better in English speaking common law systems. It needs to adopt and learn more from US digital dominance. It needs to get back to energy self sufficiency instead of depending on dearer, unreliable imports that produce more world CO 2.

 

As Rachel Reeves shifts her ground and worries how to pay all the bills without economic growth, a simple answer is staring her in the face. Cut out wasteful  spending and huge public sector losses.

Start with the Bank of England, predicted by the OBR to lose an astonishing £240 bn between end 2022 and the full wind down of its expensive bond portfolio. Losses to December in the current financial year have been over £30 bn, all paid for by taxpayers. Why?  They could copy the ECB policy and greatly reduce these current losses.

Move on to nationalised railways, costing taxpayers over £30 bn last year for losses, subsidies and capital spend. Demand a new plan that boosts efficiency and sells more tickets, with a much reduced taxpayer cost.

Require the highly paid Post Office managers to end their losses, cutting off revenue subsidies. If they cannot, change managers.

Set out clear and urgent plans to recapture the £20 bn plus of lost productivity in public sector administration. Start with a staff recruitment freeze for admin posts.

Stop Councils buying up commercial properties and investing in utilities. Some Councils are already losing millions on bad purchases.

Have a moratorium on new road schemes that reduce highway available for cars and vans and or impede flows at junctions.Too many businesses are made inefficient by traffic congestion.

One of the first votes I cast as a young man was a vote in the 1975 referendum on staying in the Common market. I read the literature of the two campaigns, and the Treaty of Rome. It was obvious the government Remain side was misrepresenting a Treaty for a future Union as a so called common market so I voted to leave.

I felt cheated by the result, based as it was on assurances we would never lose our veto and it was just about trade. As a good democrat I nonetheless accepted the verdict. For the next 20 years I did my best to limit our commitment to a free trade one, which became increasingly impossible as a series of Union treaties were put through and the Union went on a  ruthless power grab .Every time it got a majority of member states to agree another legal text it “occupied” that field of law so its laws overrode national laws.

As single market Minister I could see most of the laws did not make trading easier. They embedded the ways of doing things adopted by leading  companies- usually German and French – banning competitor methods and discouraging innovation. Where I could I blocked, delayed or diluted these would be laws. Many senior officials wanted us to give in or to strike a deal, however bad or worthless the legal proposal.

The big battle came over Maastricht. No one could claim a single currency was part of a free market. It was clearly a big step on the road to Union.

 

Channel 4 account of Walden interviews of Margaret Thatcher and the ERM split.

 

The re enactment of the Thatcher/Lawson/Howe split was poor. It missed the main point that Margaret was right to resist their wish to go into the ERM. When she was finally forced to do so by the replacement Chancellor, John Major, it proved ruinous for the UK economy.

The drama was so inaccurate in lots of annoying detailed ways . She did not talk to senior colleagues from behind a desk and did not make them stand. There were twin armchairs in her drawing room /study with other comfortable chairs in a semi circle. Bernard Ingham was her press Secretary. He did not see people in and out. Advisers did not speak at political events or gatherings of Cabinet colleagues. Alan Walters did add to tensions with Nigel Lawson at the end and was wrong to get into the press with his views. He did not cause the fissure over the ERM which started years earlier when the Treasury and Nigel started shadowing the DM as if we were in the ERM without permission.

I advised her of this and set out how ERM membership would lead to inflation when the pound was rising as you then needed to print too many pounds to sell, and to recession when the pound wanted to go down and you needed to buy. The scheme gave us both, a nasty inflation followed by a worse recession. She understood this and had to fend off the ill judged and dangerous joint Treasury/Foreign Office line. My paper setting out the problem is I am told now released with other government papers for those interested.

Happy anniversary. We gave enjoyed some big wins from Brexit despite a Uk establishment resentful of the decision to leave and keen  to blame any mistake they make on Brexit.

1. We are now an independent country. We can make our own laws  and set our own taxes. We now need a government that will do that.

2. We are now saving £17 bn a year of taxes we had to pay to the EU, after paying them too much to get out owing to feeble UK negotiating.

3. We can control our own borders. Large scale migration from the EU has stopped. Governments have angered many voters by not controlling legal and illegal migration from the rest of the world, as we can do.

4. The UK has greatly boosted its trade since the 2016 vote, leaping ahead in services to second place  in the world after the US. We can now sign trade treaties like the TPP which contain helpful service sector clauses. The EU did not help us with that.

5. The UK is no longer liable for EU debts. The EU is currently increasing borrowings by a massive Euro 800 bn.We have enough state debt of  our own  without adding that burden

6. The UK was able to go it alone and produce the first vaccine against covid.The EU programme did not produce its own .

7. The UK has taken VAT off some green products and is now free to cut other unhelpful VAT impositions,

8. The Uk has cancelled a lot of import tariffs, helping UK consumers.

9. The UK is free to cut the gross  burden of EU laws. Time  to get on with that.

10.EU technology policy is to regulate and tax US companies whilst failing to innovate and grow tec businesses itself. The UK can have a better regime to promote home tec and work well with the US majors.

11. We can now take control our fishery, give more permits to UK vessels, and ban the ultra large EU industrial vessels to conserve more fish.

 

Our last year charged as a member of the EU meant we paid them £17 bn in tax revenues. We got £4.4 bn back , making a net contribution of £12.6 bn. In practice UK taxpayers had to pay the £17 bn. The money back was meant to be for things the UK government would not normally pay for, directed by EU policies.

We are no longer making these large contributions. Every year that passes saves us more money, as the EU put the  membership fees up.

More importantly since covid the EU has gone on a borrowing binge. By 2026 it will have added Euro  806 bn of extra debt, to be guaranteed by the member states. Our share of that assuming all members pay their way would have been around £110 bn. The EU is also borrowing to lend on to Ukraine, again with member states standing behind the debts.

The last thing we need is yet more state debt. The UK has been too ready to borrow directly on its own account. It would be bad news for taxpayers if we were also up to our eyes in EU  debt. The side of the bus said we could spend more on the NHS when our EU fees stopped. That is exactly what happened, so the NHS is getting a lot more money and the UK debt is still going up.