Let’s have a Brexit budget

Today I am reminding readers of the suggested Brexit budget I launched for Conservatives for Britain before the referendum vote. It will remind people that I was very clear the extra money we have to spend is the net figure, not the gross £350 m a week. It also reminds people that NHS and social care was at the heart of the programme, along with some VAT measures:

 

“The UK currently hands over £19 billion to the EU every year. We get £9 billion back in services and the rebate which means when we Vote Leave we will be able to guarantee all the funding to farmers, universities and regional grants that currently come from the EU and still have £10 billion more to spend on our priorities like the NHS.

The Conservatives for Britain spending suggestions for the first post-Brexit budget include:

£1.1 billion for disability benefits to avoid controversial cuts

£800 million to train an extra 60,000 nurses a year to deal with shortages and excess agency staff

£250 million a year to provide an additional 10,000 doctors a year to deal with doctor shortages and to staff the seven day NHS well

£750 million a year on social care to offering better support for people in their own homes, and for more care home and respite care places.

£200 million to cancel hospital car parking charges £400 million for dearer medical treatments not currently licensed by NICE, for example cancer treatments such as Proton Beam therapy and Meningitis vaccines

£1.9 billion to abolish VAT on domestic energy, energy saving materials, on converting existing dwellings and on carry cots, children’s car seats and safety seats

£1.5 billion to keep Council Tax down by offering councils the money to pay for a discount on bills they issue

£900 million to remove Stamp Duty on the £125,000 to £250,000 band of home purchase

£500 million should be allocated to a local road fund to support local schemes to improve junction safety and flows, and to provide additional capacity and bypasses on busy roads in congested areas”

These measures or something like them should be adopted soon. We could issue them before the cancellation of the contributions has been achieved, but it would be best to get on with that in a matter of months. The contributions should not be any part of any negotiation over trade issues.

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

147 Comments

  1. Posted July 31, 2016 at 5:25 am | Permalink

    Our entire transport infrastructure from country lanes to runways and broadband is woefully, pitifully, shamefully, grotesquely inadequate: and has been for decades.

    We need A National Plan to upgrade every element of this over (say) 50 years:

    Every home to have fibre broadband (astonishingly, this is not part of Building Regs)
    Every motorway to be 5-6 lanes
    Every Trunk Road to be 3-4 lanes
    Every A-road to be dual carriageway (at least)
    Every B-road to be widened and straightened
    Every country lane to be wide enough to allow two modern tractors to pass without slowing down (they were built to allow pack-horses to do so – why have they not been upgraded since Roman times?)

    I would start in the middle and bottom of that list – if (eg) the A36, A30 A303 were all 2-3 lanes in each direction greater than today, then the pressure on the M4/M5 routes to the West Country would be relieved and, with every town, village and hamlet by-passed, rural living could become peaceful and affordable for many more people.

    The money would come from road taxes – £42 billion this year, with perhaps 10% of that spent on the roads themselves.

    I’d add one more imperative: traffic delays cost money: at least £50/vehicle/hr, so I would make 24/7 working on any non-residential road works mandatory, with 18/7 works there.
    Every hour that lanes are closed and temporary lights in place is costing us all money.

    As for the LHR runway 3 decision – London currently has 3 runways and needs 6-8. Now. Today.

    It will need 12+ by 2030 – and, since no current site is remotely capable of coping with that expansion, it is necessary to build (on former USAAF/RAF bases, I suggest) a ‘hub’ of 3-4 sites (ideally somewhere NW of London: Boris island is not really in the right place) all linked by high-speed dedicated trains so that transfer from any one hub to any other (and London) takes no more than 20 minutes.

    LGW can then be converted in a new Garden City (extending Croydon) and LHR turned into a freight-only hub.

    We lack – and, nationally, have lacked since WW2 – any vision, and attempt to build capacity for 100years hence any determination to ensure government-controlled supply is well ahead of demand.

    And that’s as true for houses (rationed under Planning Laws) as it is for health and education too: whatever the government controls, the government rations.

    Lets see an end to Marx and ‘Central Planning’ and have unfettered, ‘red in tooth and claw’ Darwinism:

    Diversity + Competition = Progress

    And that means HMG never again trying to ‘pick winners’ or prop up doomed dinosaur industries.

  2. bratwurst
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 5:32 am | Permalink

    But we are not post-Brexit – that is at least 2 years away.

    • David Lister
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 10:43 am | Permalink

      John,

      I hope you don’t mind me suggesting that this smells a little bit of milk-and-honey!

      The EU Net Budget contribution of the UK is around 0.65% of our Gross National Income (GNI), varying year by year depending on how exactly this is defined.

      If, and it is a big if, we were to be able to maintain the same level of trade with the EU then your assumptions are broadly correct. Unfortunately all realistic indicators are they we will have to forego some level of trade in services with the EU which could range from mild to severe depending on the final outcome. As the trade deals won’t happen in earnest until after we exit the EU then it could easily be 5-10 years before all this is apparent.

      Therefore there has to be some realism. If the economy suffers a downturn equivalent to more than 0,65% GNI then the benefits from avoided costs to the EU are lost.

      Current indicators are that the economy will weaken in the short/immediate term due to less growth than forecast and therefore a tightening of expenditure requires to be addressed as we leave the EU. Quite the opposite of what you are proposing.

      Reply I am not forecasting a trade hit, but if I did I want to spend more to offset loss of exports

      • David Lister
        Posted August 1, 2016 at 10:45 am | Permalink

        Thanks for your response. I appreciate you are not forecasting a trade hit, but if the BoE and NAO predict a decline then this has to be reflecting in the budget planning.

        I’m surprised that your position in response to a smaller economy, and reduced tax income, is more government spending

        reply How can there be a trade hit from leaving the EU when there is a clear delay in leaving? I have always favoured using the fiscal stabiliser in any downturn, offsetting any increase in unemployment related spending, and liking tax cuts to promote more activity. I am not forecasting a recession this year or next, so this does not arise

      • JamesG
        Posted August 1, 2016 at 11:48 am | Permalink

        Services are not in any trade deal at the moment so ‘realistically’ actually means ‘made up’.

        Current indicators are actually that the doom-mongers have all been proven wrong on every issue. As for the IMF ‘experts’, they are now under fire from their own watchdog for being ridiculously pro-EU & pro-Euro and hence causing Greece unnecessary pain in pursuit of a flawed policy.

        I don’t deny that the UK is in dire straits but that is due to a budget deficit of our own making. Remaining in the EU will however hit our agriculture (hence GDP) due to the coming ban on Roundup herbicide based on pure scaremongering; something the EU seem particularly susceptible to.

    • David Lister
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 11:17 am | Permalink

      John,

      The other aspect I would like to understand, is just how large the extra government expenditure will with associated Brexit Ministry negotiation teams and administration. This will increase government expenditure quite substanitally over the next decade.

      It has been reported (Charles Grant) that there will be 6 distinct negotating organisations as we leave the EU:

      1) Article 50 “Divorce Settlements”
      2) Negotiations of a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with the EU
      3) Negotiations on an immediate Interim Agreement after leaving the EU
      4) Attainment of full WTO organsiation describing ‘schedules’ of tariffs, quotas, subsidies and other concessions on market access between the 27 EU members and then approval of all 163 WTO members.
      5) Agreement between the 53 countries that already have FTA with the EU will have to be renogiated on UK terms
      6) UK-EU agreements s in areas like foreign and defence policy, police and judicial co-operation

      It has been stated (Chrystia Freeland) that Canada had around 300 negotiators employed for their discusisons with the EU, an agreement that took 7 years to complete. Our challenge, and pressure on timing, is far more extreme and we are starting from a base where we only have 12 to 20 trade negogiators, and last dabbled in trade negotiations in 1973.

      I do wonder how many trade negotiators and consultants we will be paying for the next decade in order to secure favourable trading arranengements which are not substanitally worse that what we already benefit from.

      Maybe you can consider these costs in your next budget update.

      Reply Should be offset by no longer needing armies of civil servants to negotiate new EU jaws

      • Lifelogic
        Posted July 31, 2016 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

        It should indeed be more than offset by no longer needing armies of civil servants to negotiate new EU laws. But then rarely in government do people disappear off the pay role just because there is nothing sensible for them to do.

        It that were the case we would only need about 1/4 of the current numbers.

        Bureaucrats very adept at creating pointless jobs (indeed often new huge net harm creating jobs) for themselves. Only the politicians to protect us from this and they rarely manage it. Hence all the motorist mugging scams the state sector indulges in.

  3. Mark B
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 6:06 am | Permalink

    Good morning.

    This all assumes that the UK will be exiting the EU in quickly. Something that our kind host has long stated.

    But what if he is wrong ? What if we decide to spend all this extra money and we get bogged down in endless negotiations whilst still in the EU ?

    At this stage of the game I am more inclined to deal with certainties than wishful thinking.

    What we need right now, is a calm measured approach and a realistic outlook of what is and what is not possible.

    BREXIT, should it happen, will not bring all the riches it is claimed. But I always knew this and was always weary of those Snake oil salesman techniques on both sides of the argument.

    Leave never spoke about the political or administrative aspects of being in the EU. It never spoke of, EVER CLOSER UNION and what it all meant. It was mostly about trade, money and immigration.

    So no, I do not want a BREXIT budget. I want to see a BREXIT Plan first. I want to return to Thatcherite monetary policy. Sensible policies (scrapping of Hinkley Point(less)) and other White Elephants.

    • acorn
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 9:09 am | Permalink

      In case you hadn’t noticed Mark, Thatcherite (Reaganomics) “monetary policy”, is what got us into our current globalised, neo-liberal, economic mess.

      JR’s post is like a local council budget debate. The lead group presents its budget and the opposition comes up with its alternate budget. About 98% of a District Council budget spends itself by diktat from Whitehall. The Councillors will only ever be arguing over about 1 or 2% of the total spend.

      Here, we have an alternate budget, re-allocating £10 billion (11.8 in 2016/17) out of a total spend for fiscal 2016/17 of £771 billion, (that will be about 41% of GDP). That is circa 1.3% of the total spend!

      • Mark B
        Posted July 31, 2016 at 11:08 am | Permalink

        Acorn

        In case you have not noticed, Lady Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were not in power in 2008. Neither were they in power in 1992, although it was Lady Thatcher that took us into the ERM and against her natural instincts.

        I think it is a bit much to keep blaming yesterday’s people for today’s mess. Lady Thatcher, although initially a supporter of the then EEC came to see it for what it was pre-EU. For that, and her resistance to the Maastricht Treaty which created the EU and the Euro, and the bedrock of much of our and others current woes, she was deposed.

        Gordon Brown created the mess with the banks by removing the Bank of England as overseer.

        As for the rest, totally absurd.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted July 31, 2016 at 3:16 pm | Permalink

          Indeed and it was largely John Major as Chancellor and the rest of the dire Tory/Libdim wets who forced Thatcher into the ERM. It was certainly him who kept us in. This long after it was clear to everyone remotely sensible what a complete disaster it was.

          • Lifelogic
            Posted July 31, 2016 at 6:39 pm | Permalink

            Not even an apology from the man, nor even any indication that he learned anything at all from the economic disaster he caused with the ERM.

        • Jerry
          Posted July 31, 2016 at 4:15 pm | Permalink

          @Mark B; “Lady Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were not in power in 2008.”

          Nor did any of them (Thatcher, Reagan or Brown) invent money, but it was still the greed for money that caused so many to over in-debt themselves. Although that said, both Thatcher and Reagan did more then many to champion electronic ‘magic’ money, or at least extend the use of such stuff by way of the so called “Big Bang” the freedom they gave banks and other institutions that wiped away many of the inbuilt checks and balances of the previous and traditional working methods.

          “I think it is a bit much to keep blaming yesterday’s people for today’s mess.”

          Why, because now it is your political idols who are being blamed, I bet you had no such wish when those supporting Reaganomics and monetarism theory were criticising Keynesian economics etc.

          “Gordon Brown created the mess with the banks by removing the Bank of England as overseer.”

          Nonsense, otherwise do tell us just how that caused the problems in the USA for example?

          The only thing “absurd” was your reply to @acorn.

          • libertarian
            Posted August 1, 2016 at 11:51 am | Permalink

            Jerry

            “Thatcher and Reagan did more then many to champion electronic ‘magic’ money, or at least extend the use of such stuff by way of the so called “Big Bang” the freedom they gave banks and other institutions that wiped away many of the inbuilt checks and balances of the previous and traditional working methods.”

            Total garbage.

            The Big Bang was the result of an agreement in 1983 by the Thatcher government and the London Stock Exchange to settle a wide-ranging anti-trust case that had been initiated during the previous government by the Office of Fair Trading against the London Stock Exchange under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1956. These restrictive practices included the London Stock Exchange’s rules establishing fixed minimum commissions, the ‘single capacity’ rule (which enforced a separation between brokers acting as agents for their clients on commission and jobbers who made the markets and theoretically provided liquidity by holding lines of stocks and shares on their books), the requirement that both brokers and jobbers should be independent and not part of any wider financial group, and the stock exchange’s exclusion of all foreigners from stock exchange membership.

            So in fact it was totally the opposite to that which you claim. It wiped away the cartels, restrictive practices and LACK of transparency that existed before . At the same time the LSE introduced the first electronic trading systems moving away from Open Outcry. The stated benefits for doing this were:

            Reduced cost of transactions – By automating as much of the process as possible (often referred to as “straight-through processing” or STP), costs are brought down. The goal is to reduce the incremental cost of trades as close to zero as possible, so that increased trading volumes don’t lead to significantly increased costs. This has translated to lower costs for investors.

            Greater liquidity – electronic systems make it easier to allow different companies to trade with one another, no matter where they are located. This leads to greater liquidity (i.e. there are more buyers and sellers) which increases the efficiency of the markets.

            Greater competition – While electronic trading hasn’t necessarily lowered the cost of entry to the financial services industry, it has removed barriers within the industry and had a globalisation-style competition effect. For example, a trader can trade futures on Eurex, Globex or LIFFE at the click of a button – he or she doesn’t need to go through a broker or pass orders to a trader on the exchange floor.

            Increased transparency – Electronic trading has meant that the markets are less opaque. It’s easier to find out the price of securities when that information is flowing around the world electronically. Its easier to regulate and monitor transactions.

            Tighter spreads – The “spread” on an instrument is the difference between the best buying and selling prices being quoted; it represents the profit being made by the market makers. The increased liquidity, competition and transparency means that spreads have tightened, especially for commoditised, exchange-traded instruments.

            Big Bang had nothing whatsoever to do with retail or commercial banks ability to lend money, increase debt or generate fractional reserve banking multiples based around fiat currency. That little farrago was arranged in 1971 by President Nixon ( although it had happened many times in the past starting with the Emperor Nero, and right through to 18th century France & UK in 1815 etc etc )

          • Mark B
            Posted August 1, 2016 at 5:47 pm | Permalink

            And what do you get paid with ? Shirt buttons.

          • Robert Christopher
            Posted August 1, 2016 at 9:57 pm | Permalink

            Part of Gordon Brown’s job was to ensure that any ‘mismanagement’ in the US (or anywhere else in the World) would not have a large knock on effect here in the UK.

            That is a job that every FD should shoulder, ensuring his/her company is resilient to mistakes made by others.

          • Jerry
            Posted August 2, 2016 at 2:54 pm | Permalink

            @libertarian; “For example, a trader can trade futures on Eurex, Globex or LIFFE at the click of a button – he or she doesn’t need to go through a broker or pass orders to a trader on the exchange floor.”

            Exactly, before, when that trader had to go through a broker or other third party they were in effect the independent checks and balance, the business was accepted or declined. Now one person is his or her judge, jury and executioner – good or bad decision.

            “Its easier to regulate and monitor transactions.”

            Such monitoring is only as good as the software, crap in = crap out (why does everyone put so much faith into computers), or has to be retrospectively carried out by a human, by which time the damage might be done, compounded by others having taken positions on that previous rouge translation.

            As for the “Big Bang”, it is not just what the phrase technically meant but the culture that was born out of it, a culture that capitalist like you chose not to see because to do so would mean popping your 1980s egos.

      • libertarian
        Posted July 31, 2016 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

        Acorn

        “In case you hadn’t noticed Mark, Thatcherite (Reaganomics) “monetary policy”, is what got us into our current globalised, neo-liberal, economic mess”

        No it didn’t. It was neokeynesian no more boom and bust Brown/Osborne economics of debt that caused the economic mess.

        If you dont think how £10b of taxpayers money is spent has any importance you’re an even bigger idiot than you appear. You certainly should never be in charge of any budget ever. Its that kind of thinking that caused the economic mess not Reaganomics

        • Jerry
          Posted July 31, 2016 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

          @libertarian; I would love to hear your theory about how Gordon Brown caused the U.S. subprime mortgage crisis of 2007–09, the collapse of IndyMac and Lehman Brothers etc!

          No one is blaming either Reagan or Thatcher of directly causing the 2007 banking crisis but that their changes in the working principles of how financial transactions and more importantly how and why such business is done was a direct contributory factor, what ever policies you think Gordon Brown carried out between 1997 and 2007 would not have even been considered possible, never mind carried out, before 1979/80.

          • libertarian
            Posted August 1, 2016 at 11:04 am | Permalink

            Jerry

            I’ve written extensively about how the UK government under Brown and Darling caused problems in the UK banking system by failing to allow the BoE to act as lender of last resort to Northern Rock in RESPONSE to the issues caused by the US financial crisis . Barclays offered to buy Lehman Bros before it collapsed as its assets exceeded its liabilities, they were stopped by Brown and the FED . Lehman went bust causing a domino effect and Barclays bought it from the receiver eventually anyway. The US subprime mortgage problem was entirely caused by US government interference in free markets i.e. the opposite of Reagonomics. As you have no real knowledge of banking or banking systems and you fail to understand completely what “Big Bang” was and is and you have no knowledge of banking transactions at all I’m not going to go over it all again. Suffice to say that the £90 million it would have cost to prop up Northern Rock became the Billions of taxpayers money Brown used to prop up failing banks.

          • Jerry
            Posted August 2, 2016 at 3:46 pm | Permalink

            @libertarian; “I’ve written extensively”

            So did Agnatha Christie…

            “Brown and Darling caused problems in the UK banking system by failing to allow the BoE to act as lender of last resort to Northern Rock in RESPONSE to the issues caused by the US financial crisis”

            So when are you going to actually deal in the facts as to how Brown and Darling caused the US subprime crisis – which is what you claimed? In your own words, above, you appear to be outlining what they did in response, not how their actions in the years and months before affected US domestic economic housing polices that lead up to and caused the problems.

            As for your comments about a UK bank offering to buy Lehman Bros before it collapsed, perhaps it was turned down because the British government/regulators had suspicions (even before more recent revelations) as to the health of UK banks not first thought to have problems – until, if ever, the papers are released in relation to this we will never know the actual facts, thus the usual conspiracy theorists prevail.

            It is you @libertarian who seem to have a problem in understanding the banking industry and its problems, because you simply do not wish to. In your world it’s never the fault of rampant capitalism, it’s always useless (usually left-wing) politicians and the regulators they appoint. The problem is not regulation, in a perfect world there would be no need for regulations, nor laws, but not everyone’s moral compasses are equal…

  4. Ex-expat Colin
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 6:16 am | Permalink

    Anything planned as regards the Smart Meter con? Like stopping it dead in its tracks.

    • Martyn G
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 7:59 am | Permalink

      Couldn’t agree more. Anyone who has a smart meter installed is handing over their control to the provider, who can at any time vary the cost/unit at any time and, ultimately, be able to switch off anyone they like, Law or no law.
      The other thing is, their is no common system – e.g. my brother in law had a smart meter installed and on changing provider to save money discovered that the smart meter was no longer smart, it not being compatible with his new provider. Daft I call it….

      • hefner
        Posted July 31, 2016 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

        And, by the way, Smart Meters are not compulsory. To stop the whole thing dead in its tracks, it just needs people a bit more curious and more informed.

  5. Roy Grainger
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 6:35 am | Permalink

    John, it is curious that after winning the Brexit campaign you are still in the position of being a voice crying in the wilderness at a Conservative government who don’t agree with you and won’t implement your suggestions.

  6. Lifelogic
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 6:38 am | Permalink

    Sound like a reasonable collection of proposals, but the real bonus we could have is far larger than this. This from a massive bonfire of red tape, simplification of taxes, attracting the hardworking and outside investments, some real competition in banking, the relaxing of planning controls and building regulations and move rapidly to cheap energy (non greencrap) energy.

    This bonfire would benefit the economy hugely, taking in more tax in the process by releasing countless people to do far more productive work. Making them far more competitive and productive. A win, win for everyone on top of the EU fee savings.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 7:09 am | Permalink

      But what do we get from this government but yet more red tape & “government knows best” nonsense. Many energy saving measure make no economic sense at all. Costing a great deal for tiny or often non existent savings. Modern boilers are more complicated, often rather less reliable and cost far more to maintain too. The gas or oil saved is often far less than the additional costs by a large margin especially with low oil and gas prices.

      Oh and Mrs May wants to abolish “modern slavery”- how much modern slavery in the UK is there? Then again taxing people at 45% + and 40% on death while delivering such poor public services is, I suppose, a form of partial slavery.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/30/green-tax-to-hit-landlords-with-5000-bill-on-buy-to-let-homes/

      Reply Tackling modern slavery should be a high priority. This is stopping Illegal immigration at the same time as protecting people who would otherwise be abused on arrival here.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 7:21 am | Permalink

      Also reported today:

      Politicians should stop using a “carrot of higher graduate earnings” to justify raising student fees or freezing repayment thresholds, say campaigners.
      Those who do “should be charged with gross mis-selling”, says Angus Hanton, co-founder of the Intergenerational Foundation (IF) lobby group.

      Indeed, outside some protected professions and after paying the costs of university and lack of earning for 3+ years there is no real premium at all often a net loss. Why is government so keen on everyone having often useless degrees?

      Where graduates do earn more it is often because they were brighter before, and not at all due to their degree. About 60% of degrees in the UK are largely worthless as are many of the second rate Universities themselves.

      Governments are always mis-selling things PV panels, pensions, energy saving nonsense and other green crap, university degrees …… or worse still forcing people to daft things by law.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 8:11 am | Permalink

      What is Baroness Altmann on about (in relation to the triple lock) Cameron’s pension soundbite. She seems to want to drop the 2.5% minimum part of the triple lock. But surely post Brexit and “IF” we do ever get a sensible government, a bonfire of red tap, sensible taxes and the likes wages will grow by at least 2.5% PA anyway. It therefore sound like a very daft thing to do politically and pointless in economic terms.

      • graham1946
        Posted July 31, 2016 at 10:54 am | Permalink

        Her point is that by dropping the 2.5 percent, a government could do what Brown did and offer an increase of 80p, even if wages went to 3 or 5 percent. She used to be good when working for Saga, but took the government’s shilling and turned native, doing nothing for pensions and pensioners whilst taking her large salary and becoming yet just another useless junior minister. She is now clueless and has joined the ‘ruling class’ on her £300 per day tax free just for turning up.

        The triple lock must stay, as long as our pensions are so poor by first world standards. When they are up to scratch, then maybe the time. How a nation treats its elderly and poor is a reflection on its standards and ours are not good in either case. Using the ‘we can’t afford it’ is rubbish when things like Hinkley, HS2 and all the other tosh are in vogue.

        • David Lister
          Posted July 31, 2016 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

          But above rate of inflation benefit increases are clearly nonsensical if continued over any period of time. Proposed by people who don’t understand compound growth.

          If future growth forecasts are lowered after the referendum then we all have to tighten our belts. There will be a cost to bringing back power!

          It’s not unreasonable first the triple lock to be the first benefit targeted as it makes absolutely no sense in a deflationary economy.

      • JoeSoap
        Posted July 31, 2016 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

        I think this leopardess will change her spots to suck up to whoever is PM at the time.
        Hammond has probably forewarned her that this particular cast iron promise is for the fairies.

    • turboterrier
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

      LL
      move rapidly to cheap energy (non greencrap) energy.

      It will never happen. That other house will stop it dead in the water.

      Manifesto stated that all subsidies would be stopped on new on shore wind farms.

      How many times has it been rejected?

      It must surely now be time for Mother Teresa to start playing hard ball.

      Repeal the Climate Change Act only allow subsidies to be paid for 10 years and that applies to ALL wind farms, solar panels and bio mass. The con has to be stopped and stopped now. Fracking licences issued with no planning objections, it is the future of this country that is at stake and the renewable lobby have had all the good times now lets get our energy policies into the real world of 2016

  7. Nig l
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 6:55 am | Permalink

    Perish the thought that some of it might be retained to reduce our deficit. Spend spend spend, the politicians mantra. Actually a lot of it makes sense however the one aspect always overlooked in the austerity debate is that financial constraint drives efficiency or should do, something the Public Sector is not renowned for.

    As far as the NHS, Local Authorities, Social Services are concerned, we should ensure through the use of benchmarking, business excellence models etc that we really are getting value for money, that cost savings through efficiency, amalgamation or outsourcing of back office functions plus technology really have squuzed as much cost out as possible. Then they can have the money as you suggest.

    There is nothing in your proposals on learning and development or enterprise. A massive upskilling for public sector management including senior politicians is a must, in depth enterprise to be embedded in schools curriculum supported by the creation of a proper learning network for entrepreneurs and some chunky start up and seed capital, with the right level of oversight, for businesses with real scalable potential that accepts some will be lost. Finally instead of giving councils money to reduce our bills, give it to them so they can offset business start up and early stage growth costs, accommodation, NI, create subsidised enterprise hubs.

    This would truly give us the foundations necessary for an economy that will generate the revenue needed to meet our social aspirations.

    • Jerry
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 8:05 am | Permalink

      @Nig l; Nice to know that some still believe the Cam-borne era propaganda, our national debt is nothing compared to what it was 70 odd years ago yet we managed to still borrow to rebuild and modernise in the post war era.

      Gordon Brown lost the 2010 election not because his (and Mr Darling’s) economic polices didn’t stack up but because Brown was simply a rubbish PM and leader – hence why the LDs wanted him gone if there had been any possibility of a LD-Lab coalition.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 8:20 am | Permalink

      Tax, borrow & waste, waste, waste is surely the real politicians mantra. Combined with boss about, boss about, boss about as we think know best. Even thought there is hardly a scientist, competent manager or engineer among them.

      In reality they almost never know best. Indeed they are not even trying to act in the public’s interests at all. The interest’s (convenience, profile, remuneration and expenses) of politicians is usually their main agenda.

      This is perhaps why totally the wrong people are so often attracted into politics. Bossy people who actually think they know best and who are attracted to the limelight.

    • APL
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 9:25 am | Permalink

      Nig 1: “Perish the thought that some of it might be retained to reduce our deficit. ”

      Bingo!

      Redwood has abandoned any principles, he’s now collectivist big government raise as much money as you can squeeze out of the ‘proles’** and blow it on buying votes, Tory, al la Ken Clarke, Michael Hestletine et al.

      ** and if that ain’t enough, run the printing presses until the bearings glow red. (and sotto voce, force the next generation into debt slavery, for the benefit of big international finance).

    • Rhys Jaggar
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 11:31 am | Permalink

      Austerity drives efficiency in those suffering austerity. It doesn’t in the managerial class because they don’t suffer austerity. Haven’t suffered austerity.

      The problem with all these arguments is that all those who actually develop and instigate austerity are not the ones who benefit from it.

      Perhaps cutting the manager’s salaries by 50% in times of austerity might be a good start?

      • libertarian
        Posted July 31, 2016 at 1:28 pm | Permalink

        Hello Rhys you teleported here from the 1920’s ? What are you burbling about . 1) What the hell is austerity? 2) How can it only effect some people and not others on an arbitrary job title 3) If the instigators of “austerity” dont benefit then who does exactly and why?

        • Jerry
          Posted July 31, 2016 at 4:42 pm | Permalink

          @libertarian; “What the hell is austerity?”

          Best you ask Mr. G. Osborne (recently of No.11 Downing Street, City of Westminster, London) what he has been talking about since at least 2010 then, apparently the UK economy has been in “austerity” mode since he took up his last governmental appointment…

          Oh and ‘austerity’ quite often affects people in different ways, or are you seriously suggesting that between 1939 and the late 1940s was the same for those living in the East End of London, Newcastle, Manchester, Glasgow etc as it was for those living in rural areas and thus with ready access to fresh farm produce, this without even considering personal wealth.

          • Edward2
            Posted July 31, 2016 at 10:20 pm | Permalink

            Strange kind of austerity when Sate sped in carried on rising.
            £340 bn in 2000
            £780 bn now
            £880bn by 2020

          • Edward2
            Posted July 31, 2016 at 10:21 pm | Permalink

            Typo
            State spending

  8. Old Albion
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 7:17 am | Permalink

    Two problems with that John.

    We have not even enacted ‘article 50’ and it’s clear Westminster would prefer not to. They’re looking for a fudge instead.

    You are not Chancellor, unfortunately.

    • Jerry
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 8:13 am | Permalink

      @Old Albion; But Article 50 is a fudge anyway. The government might yet simply decide to repeal the 1972 Act that took us into the EEC, or we might trigger A50 but state that our needs are so incomparable with EU (associate) membership that we want nothing from A50 except a legal exit under EU law.

      • APL
        Posted July 31, 2016 at 12:33 pm | Permalink

        Jerry: “But Article 50 is a fudge anyway.”

        No, it’s the legal means of leaving the European Union.

        The ’72 act just gave legal authority within the United Kingdom to instructions received from the Brussels international government.

        There is a distinction between treaties between states. Which have a bearing on the international conduct of the treating states, and the internal laws and customs of a country.

        That is what the ’72 act provides, the automatic implementation of foreign laws and diktat into British domestic law.

        One thing we don’t want, for example, is Germany ( for example ) claiming jurisdiction over British domestic policy 50 years down the line because we did not observe the legal niceties of withdrawing from the European Union.

        What we should do is, invoke article 50, negotiate access to the single market, on better terms than Norway, then adopt wholesale, all Community law into British law at the same time as repealing the ’72 act.

        Then with continuity of trade, we can unpick the laws that don’t suit us that have been imposed on the UK over the last 43 years, at our leisure.

        • Jerry
          Posted July 31, 2016 at 4:49 pm | Permalink

          @APL; Yes, a legal fudge, one that is not needed, the EU can not stop any member nation (and its peoples) from asserting their own self determination, to do so would be for the EU to break their own core rules about member countries abiding by the Fundamental Charter of the UN.

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted July 31, 2016 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

            Asserting the UK’s right to self determination is precisely what would be done by the UK government informing the other governments that it intends to leave the EU. I can’t understand this idea that we should just up and leave without a word and presumably let them find out about it through the media. How on earth could we have any kind of productive relations with them after we have done that?

          • Jerry
            Posted August 1, 2016 at 6:48 am | Permalink

            @Denis Cooper; “I can’t understand this idea that we should just up and leave without a word and presumably let them find out about it through the media.”

            No one has even implied what you wrote, all I said was that we do not need to trigger A50 to be able to leave, a simple letter to Mr Juncker with CC’s to both Mr Tusk and Mr Schulz would do – after all we haver to write a letter to them anyway informing them of our wish to trigger A50.

            “How on earth could we have any kind of productive relations with them after we have done that?”

            Isn’t that the very question the BSE groups used to ask of those wanting Brexit… Are you getting cold feet now Denis, you seem to delight in placing barriers (that would have done the BSE group proud) in the way of a very simple Brexit?!

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted August 1, 2016 at 11:30 am | Permalink

            “No one has even implied what you wrote”

            Yes, they have; you yourself may not have done but others certainly have.

            “Are you getting cold feet now Denis”

            No, I am not; what I do get is a strong sense that we can vote to leave the EU but we won’t be allowed to leave the EU; one way or another it will be prevented, and not by me.

          • APL
            Posted August 1, 2016 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

            Jerry: ” a simple letter to Mr Juncker with CC’s to both Mr Tusk and Mr Schulz would do ”

            Which is the same as a notification triggering article 50.

            Jerry: “after all we haver to write a letter to them anyway informing them of our wish to trigger A50.”

            So we can write a letter, but we can’t be bothered to write a letter explicitly triggering a50. ????

            The post of yours I responded to suggested all we need do is repeal the ’72 act, and to be fair that was my opinion in the past. But all that would do is sever the arrangement whereby Brussels dicktat are automatically incorporated into UK law via SSI or whatever mechanism the lazy sods in parliament considered least onerous for themselves.

            We would still be obliged by the International treaty of Lisbon, and in fact would be in breach of its provisions to automatically incorporate EU regulations into UK law.

            I really don’t know why A50 is such a bone of contention, we simply invoke article 50 – negotiate our friendly terms to leave. What’s the problem?

          • Jerry
            Posted August 2, 2016 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

            @Denis Cooper; I don’t think you need to fear that we will not get a Brexit, but that in doing so and as a part of the A50 process we will sign ourselves up to all the problems of EU (associate) membership without any of the advantages of our previous full membership, hence why now we are going to have a Brexit it should mean exit and not an about turn in the doorway.

            @APL: “Which is the same as a notification triggering article 50.”

            Not at all, what I suggested to Denis was a letter to the EU telling them of our (impending and immediate) repeal of our 1972 Act of Accession to the EEC/EU, thus we have left, on the other hand a letter triggering A50 would be a letter asking to leave, stating that we wish to leave sometime between the date on the letter and two years hence -not the same at all…!

          • APL
            Posted August 3, 2016 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

            Jerry: “what I suggested to Denis was a letter to the EU telling them of our (impending and immediate) repeal of our 1972 Act of Accession to the EEC/EU, thus we have left,”

            So excuse me for coming to the conclusion that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.

            The ’72 act is of no interest to the EU., it is a UK domestic act bearing on the implementation of European law and regulations in the UK, if Parliament repealed the ’72 act and then individually scrutinised each and every Brussels diktat but passed them into UK law we’d still be in accord with the terms of the Lisbon treaty.

            It is the Treaty that makes us members of the European Union, not the ’72 act.

            Further: In accord with the Vienna convention of the law of treaties, if a treaty provides a mechanism of withdrawing from the treaty, then the treating parties are obliged to follow the procedure.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 8:21 am | Permalink

      Where is the chancellor and what is he going to do with the total mess that Osborne left behind?

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 8:29 am | Permalink

      The Article 50 notice only needs to be “served” by the government under Royal Prerogative, not “enacted”. There are those who claim that it does need to be “enacted”, but their purpose it to give Parliament the chance to block it:

      https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/27/nick-barber-tom-hickman-and-jeff-king-pulling-the-article-50-trigger-parliaments-indispensable-role/

      “In this post we argue that as a matter of domestic constitutional law, the Prime Minister is unable to issue a declaration under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty – triggering our withdrawal from the European Union – without having been first authorised to do so by an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament. Were he to attempt to do so before such a statute was passed, the declaration would be legally ineffective as a matter of domestic law and it would also fail to comply with the requirements of Article 50 itself.”

      Of course we are not helped in this debate by those who want to leave the EU but refuse to accept that in 2008 the UK government and Parliament agreed to the Article 50 procedure as the route for any EU member state to make an orderly withdrawal and so we should keep our word and start with that, without prejudice to any rights we may have under general international law.

      • Mark B
        Posted July 31, 2016 at 11:23 am | Permalink

        I very much agree with your post, especially the last paragraph. unfortunately, there is a clause in Art.50 that gives them some sort of lever. It is the first Section.

        1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

        We have to determine what those ‘constitutional requirements’ are ? The UK Constitution, as I understand it, is simply the body of law. I therefore argue, that we need to either find the specific piece of legislation which deals as closely as we can to such matters or, a some sort of precedent ?

        Either way, it needs to be sorted.

        One thing the new PM could do, is to either threaten that, should she be prevented from issuing an Art.50 declaration, she will ask the Queen to dissolve parliament. It then can be a matter for the electorate to decide if their MP wishes to carry out the will of the people or not and, perhaps, run the risk of losing their seat, either through the ballot box or deselection ?

        Reply Ee leave by repealing the 1972 Act which U.S. Our constitutional requirement. What’s the difficulty?

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted July 31, 2016 at 5:20 pm | Permalink

          One difficulty is that there are pro-EU majorities in both Houses of Parliament, it would not repeal the ECA72 before the referendum and it is very unlikely to repeal it now while there is still any possibility of keeping us in the EU. Once the Article 50 notice had gone in that would be a different matter, then Parliament would have to make the best of that fait acccompli. Another difficulty is that repeal of the ECA72 would not itself take us out of the EU, it would just leave us still bound by the EU treaties and laws but without any guarantee that we would observe them.

      • APL
        Posted July 31, 2016 at 12:39 pm | Permalink

        Denis: “The Article 50 notice only needs to be “served” by the government under Royal Prerogative, not “enacted”.”

        Agreed.

        Treaties, and Lisbon was a treaty between states, are between the head of state of the treating parties. One only need look at the founding treaty of the EEC to see by whose authority it was agreed

        His Majesty The King of the Belgians, the President of the Federal Republic of Germany, the President of the French Republic, the President of the Italian Republic, Her Royal Highness The Grand Duchess of Luxembourg, Her Majesty The Queen of the Netherlands,

        Determined to lay the foundations of an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe,

        • sjb
          Posted July 31, 2016 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

          HMG may sign a treaty but it does not become incorporated into national law until Parliament passes the relevant legislation.

          • Andy
            Posted July 31, 2016 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

            The Lisbon Treaty, in which one finds Article 50, is not a part of UK Domestic Law. What the Amendment Act of 2008 did was add the Lisbon Treaty to the list of treaties contained in the original 1972 European Communities Act. As JR has constantly pointed out it is that 1972 Act which give the EU power in UK Law. Repeal that act and you are effectively out of the EU.

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted August 1, 2016 at 8:15 am | Permalink

            It may seem like nit-picking but we are not in the EU by virtue of any Act of Parliament and therefore we cannot get out of the EU by repealing any Act of Parliament.

            The Acts are there to ensure that UK law will be consistent with the requirements of the EU treaties and the EU laws springing from them, but we are bound by the EU treaties by virtue of the instruments of ratification of those treaties.

            Repeal of the ECA72 would be an act on the national or domestic plane and would not absolve us from our EU obligations on the international or diplomatic plane.

            reply The EU only has authority here because if an act of parliament

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted August 1, 2016 at 11:36 am | Permalink

            It is perfectly true that the EU has no more legal authority in this country than that which has been granted by Parliament through its Acts. But that doesn’t mean we are in the EU by virtue of those Acts, because we are not; we are bound by the EU treaties because of actions on the international not the domestic plane, when the government deposited instruments of ratification announcing to the world that the UK consented to be bound by those treaties.

            reply We gave now voted to leave that Treaty as we are entitled to do

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted August 2, 2016 at 7:48 am | Permalink

            The people have voted to leave the EU, neither of the Houses of Parliament has done that and there are majorities in each who do not want to do it.

            However the point is that the referendum vote itself has not removed us from the EU. We are still bound by the EU treaties even though the people have voted to withdraw from them, and until we do finally withdraw we are bound by Article 50 just as much as any other part of the treaties.

            Or, putting it another way, in 2008 we agreed that if any member state wished to leave the EU then it would use the procedure laid down in the new Article 50 TEU, and so that is where we should start.

  9. alan jutson
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 7:19 am | Permalink

    Let us hope it comes about, it seemed fair at the time, it seems fair now.

    Our biggest problem now that we have actually voted to leave, are our own politicians, who just want to foot drag themselves and our Country it seems on almost everything.

    Yet again we have delay after delay for supposed thinking time. I do hope we will invoke Article 50 soon and not dither for as long as we have in making up our mind about a bloody runway.

    I can understand some of our Mp’s need to get over the shock that we voted to leave, but that should have happened by now.
    We have 28 Countries that want to do a trade deal with us, for goodness sake get on with it and do not frustrate them, as they are a big part of our future.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 8:42 am | Permalink

      We now also have the Owen Smith’s (potential) Labour agenda of ignoring the referendum and just holding another one. He seems even dafter than Corbyn with his absurd “politics of envy and chip on the shoulder” 20 point plan. Why are our politicians so dire!

      The public usually just gets a choice between “totally useless” and “even worse”!

      • Rhys Jaggar
        Posted July 31, 2016 at 11:33 am | Permalink

        Owen Smith can only do anything if he becomes Prime Minister.

        That isn”t looking exactly likely right now….

        • Lifelogic
          Posted July 31, 2016 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

          Indeed hopefully we will not have to suffer either Smith or Corbyn. Cameron, Major, Blair & Brown were quite bad enough thanks.

  10. formula57
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 7:20 am | Permalink

    It is not fanciful to suppose that such a budget would do more to boost the economy than the Bank of England cutting interest rates.

    Given that “Brexit means Briexit” (apparently), why are ministers willing to give away c.£10 billion a year whilst they appoint consultants, hold meetings across the EU, and otherwise show a lack of resolve?

  11. Des
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 7:22 am | Permalink

    I am sure that this approach is right.

    Not to do so, or something similar will erode trust. Keeping the faith of the population ought to be a central aim. The rebate issue was something that nearly went pear shaped during the campaign. Early action here is an obvious win and delay makes the independence project look shady. That may be an intention for some…

    Many remainers (particularly young professionals) I speak to still think the EU ‘gives us’ more money than we put in. Seems odd but they can’t figure out who has been paying for all the new roads they drive on in Greece etc.

    ‘Evidence Resistance’ is a real problem and so much of the EU project has become a Legend in the eyes of many.

  12. Lifelogic
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 7:29 am | Permalink

    So David Cameron wants 48 remainers (people who wanted to bury UK democracy for ever and various donors to that effect) to be honoured in his leaving honours list.

    Such “political honours” are perhaps one reason for the absurd “group think & collective insanity” we get from so much of government. It leads to insanities like the Iraq war and the climate change act.

    • JoolsB
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 8:39 am | Permalink

      Time to end the honours list for anyone connected to politics. Why we have a Sir Vince Cable and a Sir Eric Pickles and Baroness Kramer to name just a few, is a joke and makes a mockery of the whole thing.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted July 31, 2016 at 3:58 pm | Permalink

        It does rather tarnish the whole system for the few top doctors, engineers, scientists, business people and the likes, who usually richly deserve the honours.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 8:44 am | Permalink

      HS2, the green deal, grants for absurd PV and wind green crap and all the rest.

    • alan jutson
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 11:43 am | Permalink

      Lifelogic

      This honours system is now a total farce, and really does devalue the award for those who are really deserving.

      Perhaps the first stage of modification if we want to keep this type of system in operation is to EXCLUDE ALL POLITICIANS FROM NOMINATING ANYBODY.

      How low can you get when you nominate your wife’s hairdresser and all those who contributed financially to a failed Remain campaign.

      I foolishly thought Cameron would be a bit above all of this absolute blatant nonsense.

    • eeyore
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

      I rather like the honours system. Wise states should reward good behaviour as well as penalise bad. For a few quids-worth of enamelled brass and a minute or two of Her Maj’s time, people can be persuaded to do their best for society for decades on end. Sounds a bargain to me.

      As for political honours and honours for party donations, well, that’s the real world and has been for many centuries. These people pay for democracy and make it work, just like advertisers funding a free Press. It seems a bit churlish to grudge them their big moment with the Gong Fairy.

  13. Ian Wragg
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 7:36 am | Permalink

    John. Whilst on the topic of budgets I’ve been trying to fathom the Hinckley Point contract. Is it true
    1. We start paying inflation proof price for base load power from 2025 even if the plant is not running.
    2. EDF are allowed an 8 year over run with no penalty.
    3. We the taxpayers are liable for all decommissioning costs.
    4. We have a 22 billion penalty if we shut down before 2060.
    Who but a PPE could sign up for such nonsense.

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 8:10 am | Permalink

      Ian,
      Agreed. It is hard to think of a less attractive proposal except, perhaps, the HS2 vanity project.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 8:18 am | Permalink

      I’ve trying to fathom how we’ve got from Calder Hall to Hinckley Point; the Queen was 30 when she opened Calder Hall, now she is 90 and I wonder if she ever looks back over her long life and asks where it all went wrong.

      • Tad Davison
        Posted July 31, 2016 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

        I know, ‘too cheep to meter’ was the mantra at the time. I could write a book on it.

        Tad

      • Ken Moore
        Posted July 31, 2016 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

        British Magnox technology was exported all around the world.
        The Uk pioneered the worlds first fast reactor…

        Then along came along the modern religion of ‘foreign investment’ and ‘privatisation’ and it was all gone in a generation. Stupidity, neglect and ignorance had killed a vitally important strategic industry.
        Politicians try to pretend that it doesn’t matter that we have lost the confidence, skills and intelligence to do these things today. But it does.

        • hefner
          Posted July 31, 2016 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

          KM, It ain’t necessarily so.

          Looking either to docs.google.com or to
          the guardian.com/news/datablog/2011/mar/18 and searching for
          “Nuclear power stations and reactions operational around the world: listed and mapped”, you’ll discover, as of 2011, 4 Magnox (GCR: gas cooled reactors) and 14 AGR (advanced gas cooled reactors) in the UK. 1 Magnox-type was in Tokai, Japan, 1 in Latina, Italy, some (?) in North Korea, but most of the 150+ other nuclear power stations were based on one type or another of Pressurized Water Reactors.

          So indeed the UK pioneered the first nuclear reactor, but then was rather poor at exporting its technology against the original US PWR design, then bought from the US by the French.

          The gas cooled technology was rapidly “out of fashion” due to technical difficulties with the various different pressures in the system.

        • hefner
          Posted July 31, 2016 at 7:25 pm | Permalink

          And who in the ’80s, ’90s were the fervent defenders of privatisation, foreign investment, if not some of kryptonite-providers you seem to revere now? Isn’t there a contradiction?

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 8:48 am | Permalink

      Indeed any we have to pay more than 2 times the going rate and nuclear is not as ‘on demand” as gas and coal either. Rather harder to ramp up and down quickly as the demand changes.

      Government and bureaucrats are dire at getting good deals, they are totally useless buyers – but then what do they care, it is not their money after all. Not they who benefit much, unless they can get a better bureaucrat job out of it.

      • APL
        Posted July 31, 2016 at 12:54 pm | Permalink

        Lifelogic: “they are totally useless buyers ”

        Totally useless sellers, too. Blair sold Westinghouse, now we have no ability to build our own nuclear reactors unless we go cap in hand to the French.

        • forthurst
          Posted July 31, 2016 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

          …correction, SC was CEO at Pilkington.

    • Ken Moore
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 9:11 am | Permalink

      I feel almost as much angst over this deal as I do visiting a Uk airshow these days.
      Once I could have seen a plethora of British made airplanes that were the envy of the world. Now all I see are relics from the past and lots of American developments of British technology..
      I don’t trust the people who signed this deal in the same way as I don’t trust those that specified the engines for our warships that don’t work in warm water…or those that cancelled Nimrod MRA4 to save 2 billion..then had to spend 3billion on Boeings inferior offering….
      Decisions are being made by a bunch of clever clogs college kids with no engineering experience…

      The people running this country take a delight in running us down they have zero pride or sense of history of this once exceptional country.

      • Tad Davison
        Posted July 31, 2016 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

        I take your point Ken, and as above, I could write a book on that subject too as aircraft are one of my many passions.

        It’s not just the British though. The story of Canada’s Avro Arrow is worth watching on YouTube. Oh, and if anyone is so disposed, perhaps they might want to look into purchase of Lockheed’s Starfighter by Germany.

        Not for nothing did Jimmy Carter sign into US law the Foreign Corrupt Practises Act. And we call these people friends? (what’s with the inclusion of the letter ‘R’)

        Tad

    • miami.mode
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 9:37 am | Permalink

      Ian. I must admit I am a bit confused about the point No. 1 that you raise.

      It has been stated that a base price of £92.50 has been agreed to increase with inflation, but when does this price commence? Is it from the date it was mooted, the date the contract is signed, the date when the power station is scheduled to be completed, the date when it is actually completed and commissioned, or from 2025 as you mention? Obfuscation in the extreme!

      • Ian Wragg
        Posted July 31, 2016 at 10:56 am | Permalink

        I understand it’s from the day the contract is signed. The increases start to mount.
        Possibly £120 per mw by 2025.

  14. They Work for Us?
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 7:43 am | Permalink

    Why oh why doesn’t Theresa May listen to your common sense like this, I hope the govt. is not going to suffer from ” Not invented here syndrome”.
    Why oh why is Theresa May concerning herself with “modern slavery”, now and to this extent and priority. Is she already looking at her political legacy, a second Wilberforce?

    On Hinkley Point, Is there not an off the peg proven reactor design, many examples working fine that we can construct/ purchase multiples and just get on with it. Why oh why do we need to boil water using a design that no working example has ever been delivered?

    Reply I am all for tackling modern slavery. It’s illegal immigration as well as exploitation of the vulnerable

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 8:07 am | Permalink

      The promise of an EU referendum was just one item in the Tory manifesto for the general election last year, and although the consequences of the referendum will take up far more time and energy than Cameron anticipated when he included that pledge – confidently expecting that he, or perhaps more accurately Osborne, would win the referendum – I would not expect May to set aside the rest of the manifesto.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 8:53 am | Permalink

      Indeed I too and for tackling modern slavery but it is already illegal. Has he nothing better to do? Has she dropped her idiotic workers and customers on company boards yet. She really does sound like yet another Cameronite, Heath, Major, Blairite, Libdim to me. Perhaps she wants to sound like a wet lefty but act as a proper Tory. Hopefully that is the agenda we shall see.

      • rose
        Posted July 31, 2016 at 1:36 pm | Permalink

        She had six years in which to remedy the neglect of previous home secretaries. FGM was first outlawed under Mrs Thatcher, and it was evident to me in the seventies that ( some people ed)in UK were practising slavery. There were also people there who had been mutilated in order to beg.

        The white slave trade has been alive and well in most of the towns and cities of England, as recorded by Peter McLoughlin in “Easy Meat” – Jack Straw’s phrase, another home secretary – for the last thirty years or so.

        The article in the ST is badly written, woolly, and vague. She seems to be saying she wants to stamp out slavery across the world. At the height of its power the British Empire only attempted to stamp out the slave trade in the British Empire. This smacks of news management by a SPAD, in the wake of the Hinkley Point abortion.

        These disgusting practices, which have been imported from other continents, should have been dealt with by controlling immigration in the past. Letting mass immigration rip, and losing control of who was coming in and what they were up to, was the responsibility of the Home Secretary. She had longer than any other home secretary to tackle these matters, but for her, caucasian policemen were the problem. Saying she is now going to work on this with her successor is less than convincing.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted July 31, 2016 at 4:02 pm | Permalink

          “badly written, woolly, and vague” – well she is a politician. You would not expect it to be precise, logical, entirely honest and specific would you?

    • Ken Moore
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 9:19 am | Permalink

      Olive Oyl listens to politically correct sense not common sense. John Redwood and others still connected to the factual truth are like kryptonite hanging around the necks of the party’s seemingly invincible ‘modernisers’
      Like Cameron she is cultivating the impression that she is about to become a true Conservative and all the stuff about embracing sharia law was just posturing.
      But she really isn’t a Conservative….

    • Anonymous
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 10:29 am | Permalink

      The problem with tackling modern slavery (and I agree – it should be done) is that we are going to have to accept even higher official levels of migration and bring these people up (or us down) to a common standard of living.

      We have not factored this into the economy, nor the loss of hidden productivity.

    • zorro
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 12:30 pm | Permalink

      It will be interesting to see as a result of tackling ‘modern slavery’ if……

      1) The number of people claiming in this category goes up
      2) As a result more claiming this status, more get residence in the UK
      3) More people are trafficked into the UK because they have more chance of getting residence in the UK by claiming to be ‘modern slaves’ than they would have in another category……

      zorro

      • JoeSoap
        Posted July 31, 2016 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

        I presume we tackle modern slavery either by returning them home to whence they came and tackling their employers under existing laws. It’s for the police to deal with, not politicians?

        • rose
          Posted July 31, 2016 at 5:22 pm | Permalink

          No, they claim asylum and they get it.

          But what of the other category, the young English schoolgirls who get trafficked around the country and have been for thirty years and more?

        • Lifelogic
          Posted July 31, 2016 at 6:49 pm | Permalink

          Indeed but the police seem to have rather different priorities, vital things such as making wolf whistling “a hate crime”.

          Also they are rather busy with the many murders (about two a weeks) done by people with mental health problems, that are not being dealt with properly by the various services paid to do so.

  15. Denis Cooper
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    “… when we Vote Leave we will be able to guarantee all the funding to farmers, universities and regional grants that currently come from the EU …”

    But there are emerging complaints that this is not being done, with some official bodies such as the Rural Payments Agency apparently having partially seized up with entirely unnecessary uncertainty about what they should be doing.

    I don’t know how much substance there is to several complaints that I’ve seen voiced in the media, perhaps there is very little but of course there should be none at all.

    We are still in the EU, all our EU treaty rights and obligations continue unchanged, and ministers should have made it crystal clear to all agencies that they should just carry on with what they were doing before the referendum.

    Any commitments which have already been made must be honoured, and the only caveat on new commitments should be that preferably they should not extend beyond five years and any extending beyond ten years should need direct ministerial approval.

    Personally I am not in a tearing hurry to stop the flow of money to Brussels, we have been paying it for decades and if it takes another decade to completely staunch the flow then so be it, just as long as it does actually happen which at present is in some doubt.

  16. DaveM
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 8:11 am | Permalink

    In order to have a brexit budget we need brexit. Five weeks and counting. Is there any chance you could write a post sometime telling us what David Davies’ committee has done do far and what the intended timeline is?

    A big point made by the referendum result was that the people actually still have a say in this part of western Europe. However, since then it appears that the politicians have firmly kept the power in their hands and are not enacting the will of the electorate. We voted to brexit, so now we need to brexit. For better or worse.

    There have been lots of convenient stories to distract from brexit. People smugglers for one. What happened to those Albanians by the way? I’ve been to Albania 3 times this year and it’s definitely not a war zone and definitely not part of the EU.

  17. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 8:16 am | Permalink

    The government shows no inclination to start the process of leaving the EU. The opposition parties want either another referendum or propose a commitment to stay in the EU in their manifestos. Is it any wonder that people are beginning to ask why they were given the chance to vote in a referendum only to have their wishes ignored?

  18. Antisthenes
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 8:27 am | Permalink

    I have a feeling that Brexit is not going to happen anytime soon. So post Brexit budgets are premature. Good propaganda exercise though to have the media trail it.

    TM is coming across as a ditherer. I was not impressed with her time at the Home office she appeared to be more talk and show than substantive action. Credit to her for not making major cock ups like some of her predecessors. Does that indicate that she is not a risk taker or has better judgement. Only time will tell I hope it is the latter otherwise Brexit, Hinkley, HS2 and the third runway are going to suffer. For me the first one full speed ahead for full withdrawal. I am not sure that is how she wants it. Hinkley no. HS2 no use the money more wisely on upgrades and expansion of existing. Third runway I do not care where but do it. I hope she agrees.

    She may base her decisions on who she offends the least and where she will gain the most kudos. Then most political decisions are made that way so that is why most of the decisions taken are wrong. Unless of course you are a Brussels bureaucrat who do not care about approbation and still make the wrong decisions. That is because they have the power to impose without being accountable which of course gives them delusions of grandeur and infallibility.

  19. JoolsB
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 8:32 am | Permalink

    I see May has stupidly already stated that she intends to keep the aid budget the same.

    How about using some of the savings to create a level playing field for England’s young and England’s sick and elderly and end your Government’s blatant discrimination against them, especially those students training to do the professions we desperately need like doctors & scientists etc?

    • Tad Davison
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

      Interesting point you make Jools.

      I know of many genuinely sick people who, thanks to people like Osborne and his nasty party comments, are presently under a great deal of pressure to prove their circumstances to a DWP assessor in order to receive benefits that provide a very basic existence, despite lots of medical evidence already accrued over many years.

      Yet there are many criminals including drug dealers, burglars, scammers, muggers, pick-pockets, and the like, who ‘earn’ many thousands of pounds in a week who are not properly targeted or pursued by the so-called forces of law and order on the part of the state. And then we see the EU demanding more money from us for this undeclared dark side of the British economy.

      That sends out a statement, and it isn’t a very good one, that the country they paid taxes to, isn’t there for them when they most need it, through absolutely no fault of your own, and they are considered the very worst type of scum, falling well below even the criminal.

      That needs to change.

      I still say we need a revolution to put right years of mismanagement by people who haven’t got a clue.

      Tad

      • miami.mode
        Posted July 31, 2016 at 5:57 pm | Permalink

        …..I still say we need a revolution…….

        Trouble is, Tad, that Jeremy Corbyn is just your man for a revolution.

        I recollect reading some time ago that basically Jeremy and his associates are simply waiting for the revolution to come.

        I come from Tooting and even I didn’t believe in Citizen Smith. Perhaps Jeremy thought it was a documentary. I could just imagine him shouting his slogans in the Mitre or the Railway Bell.

        • Tad Davison
          Posted August 1, 2016 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

          Jeremy Corbyn? My man?

          That the present system needs reform should be beyond doubt. There are plenty of us who criticise it on a daily basis and put forward our own solutions and preferences, but I am inclined to think the adoption of best practise is the way to go, taking ideas from right across the political spectrum to make it fairer and more ethical. But for me, a red line issue is providing for the sick and the elderly, whilst absolutely hammering the criminal fraternity.

          I really can’t see Mr Corbyn and his fellow socialists in the Labour party going along with the latter, they’re too infused with do-gooders and enthralled with the ways of groups like NACRO and The Howard League for Penal Reform. Yet another reason why we need to keep them out of power.

          Tad

  20. Ken Moore
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 9:01 am | Permalink

    Uncle Redwood,
    I suspect the government could cover the small number companies costs, that would potentially incur import tariffs and still have change from the Eu contribution budget?.
    Perhaps this could be done through tax breaks?.

    Worst case scenario if a free trade/no free movement deal can’t be reached.

  21. The Prangwizard
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 9:11 am | Permalink

    And there was I thinking Mr Redwood was a Conservative!

    Frittered away. It won’be noticed and you won’t get any credit for it, no doubt that is what you are hoping for. Caring and ‘thinking about you’. Oh dear.

  22. Denis Cooper
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    I’m not expecting that the government will have the full £10 billion a year available for domestic purposes, not least because we may have to agree to sweeteners to persuade the eastern European countries to relinquish the future rights of their citizens with respect to migration to the UK.

    I’m not talking about the rights of their citizens who have already settled here, up to some cut-off date such as June 23rd, which in all decency should have already been guaranteed by the government, but the rights of their citizens to settle here over future decades.

    I see that Priti Patel is suggesting that our international aid budget should be used to help make more favourable trade agreements with recipient countries:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/30/britain-to-leverage-11bn-of-foreign-aid-to-build-new-trade-deals/

    “Britain to ‘leverage’ £11bn of foreign aid to build new trade deals after Brexit”

    Of course the very idea of doing that is anathema for some, but supposing that it goes ahead perhaps part of it could be bi-lateral programmes of assistance to the poorer EU member states to at least partly compensate for future limitations on the free movement of their citizens to the UK.

    Most of the contributions supposedly made to the EU by Norway are not in fact to the EU but direct to poorer EU member states, as “EEA grants” and “Norway grants”:

    http://eeagrants.org/

    http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=85515

    But I would hope that any “UK grants” would be spent on better projects.

  23. fsvedang
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    250 millionto provide 10,000 doctors?!? a doctor costs 25,000a year? a good example of BREXIT maths…

    Reply Student training costs!

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 6:53 pm | Permalink

      Indeed and there are plenty of very capable people what are being refused places as medical schools due to the severe rationing of places. Many could easily pay rather more than the £9,000 towards these costs.

      • hefner
        Posted August 2, 2016 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

        Lifelogic,
        You should start giving references for the strong statements you put forward. Who are the very capable people able to easily pay rather more than the £9000 towards the costs? How do you know that? What makes you so sure of such a thing?

        Thanks to the rather open policy of JR’s site, anybody can write almost anything, even if only based on the weakest or no argument, or the tiniest bit of or no proof.

        And I find rather ridiculous that somebody who is very likely to have gone through university at a time where there were no fees can now be so cocksure that most students have to pay £9000+/year.

  24. fedupsoutherner
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    Good points John and best if they can be delivered quickly so the public can see the benefits of leaving – that’s if we ever do of course.

    Just read that the Stronlairg wind farm proposed for the wild land around Loch Ness is to go ahead after the John Muir trust won a case against it. This case was supported by the Mountaineers Society and the Scottish governments own advisors, SNH and many members of the public. It was of course, overturned (where is democracy) and now the Scottish government and the developer (SSE) is going ahead with it. I wish Mrs May did something positive about this crap green energy which is achieving nothing except destroying the most beautiful landscapes and precious wildlife habitat in Scotland. Stop the subsidies for it now. ALL SUBSIDIES. Put the money into something that works 100% of the time. The green crap will be the downfall of the UK.

    I hope some of the excess money can be used for resurfacing the roads which are dangerous in some areas.

  25. Bert Young
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 10:00 am | Permalink

    The priorities John announces in his post Brexit budget are sensible and definitely worth supporting . The message has to get through to Hammond that there is very substantial support for allocations that send a stimulant to the electorate ; the next election will depend on it .

    I don’t accept that Brexit negotiations should be a prolonged affair ; the sooner the plug is pulled we can face reality and measure up to re-building our markets . The more recent disclosures from the IMF show just how sensible it was for us to get “out “; the defunct EU cannot survive on words alone .

    • zorro
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 12:36 pm | Permalink

      We need to be watchful – I remember seeing Mr Hammond on a news item when he went to China saying knowingly that Brexit was a surprise to everyone followed by a chuckle/sneer which convinced me that he will do his level best to thwart the popular will wherever possible…..

      zorro

      • hefner
        Posted July 31, 2016 at 5:58 pm | Permalink

        Some are reading coffee grounds or tea leaves, others, most sophisticated I guess, are analysing Minister’s chuckles. What about the direction of flight of crows?

  26. Adam
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 10:26 am | Permalink

    Ever since we broke free from the Catholic Church before, in the past, progress was made in our society by concentrating on truth instead of vested interests and lobby’s, by that i included professional unions.

    The Northern European societies lead the world in science. If we are to keep our leading position we should prioritise science.

    Now the future of science is biology. Our techniques with biology are only just beginning and luckily for us these have a big influence in medicine. So if you want to spend the money on healthcare, do it at a higher level. Invest in making sure the UK leads the world in biology for the next 200 years to come and you will have made the best, most optimal decision and investment with the money you have to spend.

  27. Anonymous
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 10:33 am | Permalink

    We’re not leaving the EU. We must get used to this but there must be NO SECOND REFERNDUM.

  28. agricola
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 11:26 am | Permalink

    Before you start throwing money at the NHS I would like to see it value analysed. Are we getting value for money. Does it operate on the best business model to produce good outcomes, customer satisfaction, and at an acceptable cost. The whole process to be conducted by professional people who know what they are doing, ruling out politicians and civil servants who are responsible for what we have at present. Forget the private / public means of producing the service, the only thing that counts is the quality of the outcome, and the fact that it is available at the time of need. The NHS should not be the political pawn of those that work in it nor that of any political party ideology.

    When you begin to look at projects to absorb the surplus £10 Billion, consider two things. First reducing the National Debt, second start looking at projects designed to make a profit, runway capacity for example. Your suggested spending programme of £7.7 Billion all has merit, but any profit it might accrue is incidental and way down the line. By this I mean that improved health is fewer lost working days, and better roads lead to reduced transport costs, but it only affects the bottom line at a distance from it’s delivery.

    By all means guarantee current UK spending which currently goes via the EU to UK recipients at least until the end of this Parliament. Review it all for the next Parliament.

    Start thinking about how you can incentivise the wealth creating elements in our economy. Consider killing off IHT which is an iniquitous tax on already taxed income. Reduce Corporation Tax drastically to encourage investment in the UK. Remove stamp duty completely to incentivise the property buying and house building industry. Bring back tax allowances for people using private health and education. Why should they pay for systems they are not using, but in so doing are reducing the burden on government services.

    Long term work on less government systems to get government off the backs of the people. Most of it is not needed and what is needed comes in an inferior form to that which is possible.

    Reply I have not allocated to spending or tax cuts the large fall in interest rates and therefore future UK government debts costs, which will therefore cut the deficit.

  29. BobE
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 11:43 am | Permalink

    There will be a fudge

  30. CHRISTOPHER HOUSTON
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    A list of Businessmen and BusinessWomen and their companies were listed in various newspapers and periodicals prior to the Referendum saying they would leave the UK if we The People voted to exit the EU
    Can these people be contacted formally, asked for their plans to leave and be offered subsidised plane tickets to their European destination of choice, perhaps Brussels, Paris, Nice, Munich, Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray or Ankara. They can have their luggage sent later, save them the time of packing. Actors and writers and university academics will also feel the immediate need to leave as from their own standpoint they will shortly become unemployed. Time is of the essence, pack up and take off.

  31. Tad Davison
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 11:53 am | Permalink

    With whatever savings we can make from leaving the EU, we need to budget for vastly increased numbers of police. The government might claim that crime is actually falling and that extra officers are not needed, but that doesn’t seem to be the feeling out on the streets. Communities are in despair.

    We rarely see a policeman on the beat, interacting with the local communities and gathering intelligence from them. Instead, the police now have a fire-fighting role, going from one call to another, if at all. They have become estranged from the very people they are supposed to serve, who provide their eyes and ears.

    Criminality is often under-investigated, leaving people feeling vulnerable. As an example of how corrosive that can be, the Cambridge Evening News carried a story only yesterday where a motorist had reported the driver of another car for dangerous undertaking at high speed that could have resulted in someone’s death, yet the police did absolutely nothing, despite it all being caught on camera (please look it up).

    An under-resourced police service is a very dangerous thing indeed that politicians must not countenance, but criminals also need to know they will face real punishment as a hardship to themselves, and a deterrent to others, yet that principle has also been allowed to fail by hug-a-hoodie politicians who don’t live in the real world and face the challenges and intimidation the rest of us do on a daily basis.

    It all costs money, but it all comes down to what kind of society we want, and if we’re prepared to pay for that peace of mind. I suggest in getting out of the European Union, we now have an opportunity to put things right, and it can’t come soon enough for me.

    Tad Davison

    Cambridge

  32. Denis Cooper
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 12:11 pm | Permalink

    In response to several comments urging that the government should serve the Article 50 notice immediately:

    If Cameron had done what he repeatedly promised and sent in that notice immediately after the referendum then he would have forestalled attempts to prevent the government doing that under prerogative powers without further parliamentary authorisation.

    But he didn’t do that, instead he gave the enemies of the people time to regroup and start vexatious legal proceedings, which on the present schedule cannot be concluded before the third week of October at the very earliest.

    https://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/fund-manager-among-leaders-brexit-legal-challenge/

    I don’t think the government can serve the notice while these cases are pending.

    In fact I suspect the question is not whether the government will be able to serve the notice after that first hearing but just how far the legal proceedings will go and how long they will take.

    I think it’s unlikely to happen, but if the Supreme Court decided to refer it to the EU’s Court of Justice then it could be years.

    Reply Parliament can just get on with it. This is a constitutional matter for Parliament and of course. Will need to approve our exit by repeal if the 1972 Act

    • acorn
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 4:10 pm | Permalink

      Denis, give it up, you are flogging a dead one. The UK has no written Constitution or a set of rules that say how such a Constitution would be changed; democratically, hopefully, in the first instance.

      UK Law is, what ever the government of the day says it is! If it is not, the government will change it, using its HoC lobby fodder.

      An “elective dictatorship” (also called executive dominance in political science) is a phrase popularised by the former Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, Lord Hailsham, in a Richard Dimbleby Lecture at the BBC in 1976. (HT: WIKI)

      BTW. I have come to expect a very low level of macroeconomic understanding on this, a typical right wing site. But, your today’s commenters, have collectively made you a prizewinner. The really funny bit is the bunch of […] you have attracted, can’t understand why you haven’t got a call from Mrs May. There has never been a better moment for a new post Brexit party, following an MMT strategy. Think about it 😉

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted July 31, 2016 at 5:35 pm | Permalink

        Well, it doesn’t really matter what I think or say. Either the courts will find for the government, which will then be free to put in the Article 50 notice and so we will leave the EU, or the courts will find against the government and rule that it needs further authorisation from Parliament, which authorisation Parliament will almost certainly then deny, and so then we will stay in the EU.
        That’s what it boils down and there’s nothing I can do about it.

      • Jack
        Posted August 1, 2016 at 6:37 pm | Permalink

        Acorn, do you think JR will ever take time to learn the truth about our monetary system? A new post-Brexit MMT party is obviously tempting, but it would be a disaster electorally.

        The great thing about MMT is that it can be applied to centre-right “small-state” ideologies just as much as it can be applied to left-wing ideologies.

        (Unchecked link removed ed)
        It basically explains how our monetary system really works and why we need much, much larger government deficits. It’s essentially just a presentation of the Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy by Warren Mosler, so if people don’t have the time I recommend just reading the pdf book online (since it’s free).

        We need to hammer the fact that our economy could be growing in real terms annually in the double-digits, and the fact that we’re languishing around 2.2% annual GDP growth is a tragedy.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 5:11 pm | Permalink

      JR, if the government loses the court cases then it will have to turn to Parliament to authorise the service of the Article 50 notice and it is very unlikely that a Bill or even a resolution to approve that would get through both Houses. So then we will be stuck in the EU despite having won the referendum. I’m amazed that you, and some of your colleagues like Bill Cash, seem unable to see this. Please could you explain how you propose to assemble the required majorities in both Houses!

      Reply Exit from the EU will have a 3 line conservative whip in the Commons. Any rebels will be covered by Ulster MPs and Labour Brexiteers. I would be surprised if Labour were whipped to oppose. The Lords is unlikely to vote down the wishes of the people in a referendum and the Commons to implement.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted August 1, 2016 at 8:30 am | Permalink

        The government has a working majority of 16 in the Commons, and while most Tory MPs would obey the whip many would be doing so against their inclinations and some would rebel. If Labour chose to oppose then the odds would be on the government losing the vote.

        As for the Lords, we are talking about a huge pro-EU majority of unelected legislators-for-life who need have no concern about the will of the people or what might happen at the next election, and reading their debates since the referendum I would be very surprised if they allowed us to leave the EU while they still saw any possibility of keeping us in the EU.

    • f
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

      Reply to reply. So why isn’t parliament just getting on with it??

  33. turboterrier
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 12:29 pm | Permalink

    May be the reason why Article 50 is being waved about but not acted upon is the state of the EU especially within the euro zone. Private bail out for Italy in the nick of time but other banks are all heading the same way.

    Just get the hell out of the mad house now before we are asked as a “member” to pay even more to the club. The dire financial position has been going on for far too long and it looks like it is time to pay the ferryman or be cut adrift, It was so obvious why didn’t Merkal see it coming?

  34. Andy
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    I would rather spend the whole £10 billion on Defense. That’s where it should go. Improve the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.

  35. ian
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 12:56 pm | Permalink

    Budget spending go up by 22 billion a year which is suppose to be inline with extra taxes coming in and the sale of assets of 6 billion but assets sales last year were 29 billion but did not say where that money went, now we know there is going to be shortfall this year in the tax take because growth is falling and with 76 billion borrowed last year and reported to be 55 billion this year but we are already at 28 billion this tax year with 9 months to go with the new chancellor saying that he going cut vat and other taxes so people will go out and borrow more money to try to get the tax take up by buying more goods with the BOE cutting interest rates and doing more QE and at the same time increasing infrastructure spending by a big amount, this to me would suggest that the 10 billion from the EU has already gone into the black hole.

  36. Anthony Makara
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

    John, you forgot to add imposing a Tariff on imported goods from economies that engage in Currency Manipulation. As Donald Trump says, we need a Fair Market as well as a Free Market. If Mr Trump becomes President and toughens up on market manipulation by the likes of China, will a UK govt support him and follow suit? The West cannot hope to rebuild manufacturing and get better wages paid for out of Productivity until it addresses the problem of Currency Manipulation. What is you position on this actually?

    • Jack
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

      You’re looking at it the wrong way. Granted, so is JR and basically everyone right now. Having a trade deficit is a net benefit to our prosperity and directly improves our standard of living, as imports are real benefits and exports are real costs. The purpose of exports is to get as many imports as you possibly can in exchange.

      If another country wants to engage in “currency manipulation” (aka drive their currency down), then let them! It means we get more imports to consume whilst having to export less of our output for others to consume. Win-win!

      Now you’re probably thinking, “but exports provide jobs? Won’t a larger trade deficit mean less jobs?”

      Jobs are lost because taxes are too high for a given level of government spending, not because of imports (from Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy by Warren Mosler). A current account deficit acts as a demand leakage and therefore the government needs to run a larger-than-usual budget deficit to fully accommodate the external sector whilst also promoting full employment and prosperity at home.

      • Anthony Makara
        Posted July 31, 2016 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

        China does its Capital Spending in the hard currencies it accrues from the West’s huge trade deficits, that’s how it operates, effectively keeping two sets of books. My view is that we need to rebuild not only our export reach but also our UK Internal Market, because it allows us to take care of food and energy security and will get us back to full employment. Something we haven’t seen since the mid 1960s when the Labour government devalued Sterling, a later Conservative government floated the Pound and set in track the UKs industrial decline. The reality is that we can’t rebuild manufacturing or set in motion a Made-in-Britain policy while dirt cheap Chinese and BRIC imports are 40% plus cheaper than anything that can be produced here. Donald Trump isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, even Conservative Home is now backing Hillary Clinton, but Donald Trump understands the problem of Currency and Wage differentials and wants to stop the cheating, he wants to stop the rigged market that works in favour of China and the BRICS. Donald Trump gets it. Phillip Hammond doesn’t get it.

        • Jack
          Posted August 1, 2016 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

          We can always maintain full employment and maximum output domestically with a floating exchange rate, regardless of external factors. The rest of world can devalue and send us as many imports as they like, but it won’t make a difference to that fact.

          It just requires larger budget deficits, which are not a bad thing at all once you understand our monetary system. I recommend reading the Seven Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy by Warren Misled (free online).

  37. Kevin
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 3:39 pm | Permalink

    As the oft-repeated figure of £350 million a week has received another mention here, I feel it necessary to enumerate the following ‘facts and figures’ that emanated from the Remain side during the referendum campaign (as reported in the press):

    1) A year-long recession
    2) 820,000 people out of work
    3) House prices [would] plunge by 18 per cent
    4) Britain would be “permanently poorer”
    5) The economy would shrink by 6% by 2030
    6) The average pensioner would be £32,000 worse off
    7) Families would be £4,300 worse off by 2030
    8) A £15billion cut to the NHS, defence and other priorities
    9) £15billion in tax rises, including a 2p rise in the basic rate of income tax to 22 per cent, a 3p rise in the higher rate to 43 per cent, and a 5p rise in inheritance tax rates to 45p as well as higher fuel duties

    • Lifelogic
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 6:55 pm | Permalink

      Yet they claim it was the leave side were lying!

    • Mark Watson
      Posted July 31, 2016 at 8:14 pm | Permalink

      We would also be better leading, not leaving,the EU 🙂

  38. JohnF
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 4:43 pm | Permalink

    The £10 billion will be needed to cover the shortfall in tax receipts from the slowdown that every Brexit voter (apart from me it seems) thinks is not going to happen.

  39. Iain Gill
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

    John,

    You show here you live in the political bubble too much. Spraying more money into the NHS is not going to impress anyone. It needs reform and its needs decision making handing over to the customers aka the patients. Any money freed up by Brexit for healthcare should firstly be given to those patients most obviously being let down by the NHS in money form to go and spend anywhere they want for the treatment they need. So those waiting the longest in queues, or failing to get what would be considered basic lifesaving treatment in any other developed country should just be given the money to go get that treatment private, abroad, or in the NHS (you will find the NHS suddenly starts listening to patients when they have money to spend). Don’t give it to the madarins to waste.

  40. Margaret
    Posted July 31, 2016 at 8:36 pm | Permalink

    I would like to see the money in the NHS carefully spent, It would not be sensible to just give money to the CEO’s and say get on with it. We need Nurses and a few of the Doctors who actually know the NHS to tell the ones with the budget where patients would be benefited. If ward managers make a good case for more money or staff and it gives the hospital more prestige then they will go with it. There are areas which are deprived of essentials due to incorrect management.

  41. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted August 1, 2016 at 1:05 am | Permalink

    Once payments to Brussels cease, we will have available an extra £14 billion per annum in cash. The Vote Leave campaign was not a political party and had no authority to make promises on behalf of the government.

    Whether to spend £5 billion per a year on funding to farmers, universities and regional grants that currently come from the EU, is a matter for our discretion. Subsidies to farmers can be justified only to the extent that we must be reasonably self sufficient to feed ourselves in time of war, and to promote measures that protect wildlife. Payments to universities and regional grants need to be reviewed, the latter downwards. Overall, we should look to replace £5 billion of EU expenditure by £3 billion of our own, leaving us £11 billion extra per annum.

    The commitment to additional NHS expenditure was £100 million per week, i.e £5.2 billion per annum. It was promised so often that any Government may wish to agree, although not obliged to do so. Any additional care for the elderly at home must arise either by diverting some of the £5.2 billion to councils, or from increased council tax.

    There is a good case for no other increases in public spending, leaving £5.8 billion to reduce the fiscal deficit. Remember that we do have a £76 billion per annum fiscal deficit and that, thanks to the explicit nature of the 2015 manifesto, we have little room for manoeuvre.

    Very sorry to be a party pooper.

  42. Javelin
    Posted August 1, 2016 at 4:56 am | Permalink

    Last year I commented about my presentation to the bank that Saudi needed $50 to pay for their welfare state and arms. I argued that the US could bring fracking costs down to the $5 it cost the Saudis to extract oil. Nobody took me seriously. Fracking oil now costs $2.25 according to the Telegraph today.

    The consequences I argued was that the fracking industry would lead a price war not the Saudis. Saudi money I argued paid for political protection in the west via political donations to the US. This would I argue radically change globalism, political policies and investment in the west in favour of the west. Saudi was a dead man walking. Oil prices were heading in one direction. Down. Saudi and their interests would go the same way.

    I have been proved spot on. The predictions were well costed and researched. It will be a mechanical process watching it happen.

  • About John Redwood


    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, He graduated from Magdalen College Oxford, has a DPhil and is a fellow of All Souls College. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page