Author: johnredwood

One of the bizarre features of the Pension fund led collapse of government bonds prices  after the Truss budget was how little many involved in pension fund investing seemed to understand about the way bonds changed in price. For some years when interest rates were artificially depressed by massive official bond buying with newly created money called Quantitative easing, many pension regulators, experts and commentators piled Trustees into UK government bonds as “safe assets” or “matching assets”. They so believed in them they told them to buy many more bonds than they could afford. They put claims on  bonds into heavily leveraged funds or LDI funds so the pension fund could own several times what it could afford and only have to pay a small proportion of the cost. The small print said they had to pay up more if the bonds fell in value, but the assumption was the bonds were “safe” and would not tumble.

What they should have known and more importantly should have set out clearly was a government fixed income bond will fall a lot if interest rates go up. The longer the time  before the bond repays, the bigger the fall will be. A simplified sum shows why. A bond issues at say £100 and states what the interest will be each year. A 1% bond means the government will pay 1% or £1 on your £100 bond every year until repayment, which is stated as a maturity date.  If you lend the government £100 at 1% for a year and rates then go up to 2% the bond will fall in price if you want to sell  to £99. The new buyer wants not only the £1 of interest for the year he will own it, but the £1 capital gain he will get when it repays at the original £100 issue value. That then gives him the 2% the market now wants. If you lend the government £100 at 1% with no repayment date, and rates go to 2%, then the value of the bond halves to only £50, as the new buyer wants the £1 of income on the bond to be 2% not 1% of what he invests. The very long dated  bonds perform more like the no repayment date bond for obvious reasons.

So many funds bought gilts, UK bonds, at interest rates of around 1%. Look at some of them now.  Anyone who lent to the government for 0.5% until 2061 has a bond worth £26.62 today for each £100 of stock . Anyone who lent  at 0.875% until 2046 has a bond worth £47.20 today per £100 of stock. Far from being safe and reliable investments these bonds proved to be very volatile and have so far lost their owners more than half their money. Of course if they hold to redemption they will get back the full capital lent, but they will have suffered from a very low interest rate over the whole time of their ownership when deposit rates are now so much higher for less risk and more convenience.  Owning a bond that repays in 36 years time means a long wait to get all the initial advance back and a long period of very low returns. It is difficult to see how such an investment matches the liabilities of pension funds, seeking to pay a pension that people would like to  go up with prices rather than eroding value as inflation hits.

This is important background for the government as it asks itself if UK pension funds should invest more in the UK, and if they should invest more in shares  than in bonds. You can of course more than halve your money  by buying the wrong mix of shares at the wrong time just as with long bonds. In good years you tend to make more in shares, as the successful companies which tend to dominate the index grow their profits, earnings and dividends by more than inflation. A matching asset for a pension fund is an asset which over time earns a return that takes care of wage inflation.

When I wrote a piece saying Mr Windsor would pose constitutional issues to be resolved some of you criticised me. You thought this was not a serious topic. You thought it wrong to call the ex Duke of York Mr Windsor.

I hope now the King tells us he is Mr Mountbatten Windsor  you will agree with His Majesty. Now the King is using prerogative to strip him of titles formally you see this is a serious constitutional issue. He will presumably  be taken out of the line  of succession.

It would clearly be best if after cross party soundings this use of royal prerogative  is widely supported and ideas of new legislation  be shelved. The wise decision to move to private property and to rely on family money removes the need for Parliamentary investigation of the properties of the Crown estate in this connection.

The revelation that the Chancellor failed to apply for a licence to let her home in Southwark shows just how expensive and complex the rules now are if you want to be a small landlord. £945 for an on line licence with extra for an invoice, or £1174 if you apply in writing. You need to show at least four certificates about features of the property, supply floor plans, show compliance with planning and other requirements.

If government was serious about easing the housing  shortage and bringing rents down they would make it easier to rent out your home or second home for a limited specified period. These complex requirements and high charges put many people off renting out property they may need back.

Labour usually  hound people who fail to comply or make mistakes. They are anti landlord. Why are they so forgiving of the Chancellor and why did they seek to keep the Deputy PM when both failed to follow their own complex rules to save themselves money?

The government says its new housing legislation will be good for tenants. Existing tenants get greater security of tenure, can carry on living there after the expiry of a limited term lease and can delay or prevent a rent rise on review. Landlords will need to look after their properties better. So what’s not to like?

The problem is this  legislation will lead many landlords to withdraw their properties from the market. All countries that have tried  rent controls have cut the supply of rented accommodation, driving prices up for new space. People who are looking for a rented home get less choice and higher prices.

If government says a limited period lease is no longer enforceable many potential landlords who want to let for a specified period will not take the risk.

The rapid growth of private rented accommodation since the legislative changes of 1988 has been crucial to providing many more homes in the last 37 years. Reversing this will be damaging. Reversing it without cutting the level of inward migration is particularly  damaging.

The government is miles  off hitting its new housebuilding  targets, with new home  sales falling.  The position is so dire in London with practically no new homes being built that the government has announced temporary suspension of the high social housing requirement, the high taxes or CIL payments and the fierce rules of the Building Regulator. They are also giving London £12 bn to help build more social homes, money taxpayers cannot afford, to offset the big costs and damage done  by their regulations.

What a mess. Government needs to stop interfering so much.Their laws   mean fewer homes and dearer rents.

Some of you criticised me for writing a blog about Mr Windsor. I did so because it was obvious it was going to open up important arguments about state property, the private money of the royal family, and access to state cash and property for any royal who is not a working member of the family. So it has proved, with the Lib Dems deciding to allocate Parliamentary time to debating these issues.

These are not just a dead cat spin item from Labour as some of you think. This is a real issue raised by the King with his brother as the King  battles to assert duty and good royal service over the noises off generated by allegations against Mr Windsor. The King wanted to take away the titles. His Prime Minister clearly agreed. Both hoped they could do it without Parliamentary debate and legislation. Then the issue of the Windsor mansion and its rent came up, posing the question  of how will Mr Windsor pay for the expensive maintenance and upkeep of such a property given that he cannot receive any state aid or subsidy. If Mr Windsor has his own means then there is no public issue, though the Crown Estate will be asked to explain the financial basis of the lease by some in Parliament.

Meanwhile the King has prayed with the Pope. As Supreme Head of the established Anglican Church the King appoints senior clergy on the advice of the Prime Minister. Much was made of the symbolism of the two Heads of two large international Churches praying together almost 500 years after the Anglican Church separated from Rome. It is difficult to see how this can lead to a union of the two. The Catholic Church is against female priests. It was not surprising that the Anglican Church sent a man as its senior priest to the ceremony, claiming the Archbishop of Canterbury elect was not yet in office to avoid difficulties over sending a woman. The Catholic and Anglican views on same sex relationships  are not the same , though both Churches do not conduct same sex marriages. There remain a range of other doctrinal differences concerning communion, Saints and sacraments.

There is also of course a fundamental constitutional divide. The main point of the Anglican settlement was to take back control, to prevent appeals to Rome in difficult cases and to ensure decisions made for our Church were taken here at home. The Act of Restraint of Appeals 1533 was a fundamental assertion of English sovereignty, vesting power in the King who appointed the Archbishop in  charge of the Church. The idea was to banish the disputes between England’s government and the Pope, renamed the Bishop of Rome. Henry II had fallen foul of this with the death of Becket, and Henry VIII with his divorce.

The King needs to tread carefully. The PM needs to give him good advice. This remains a potentially important constitutional matter, given the extent of the wealth and property of the Anglican Church and its presence in the Lords.

Since the government came  to office every problem they’ve encountered has been  explained as being the fault of their predecessors. They told us Britain was broken but they would  fix it.

It is true there were too many legal  migrants coming in. The Conservatives have apologised for that whilst pointing out that you do need a third country to send illegals to where you cannot negotiate returns to where they came from. The Conservatives successfully stopped  the large flows from Albania with a returns agreement. Rwanda would have worked if they had amended the human rights laws as some of us proposed and is now Conservative policy. Legal migration was also too high, though they did cut back substantially in the last year.

Labour made the migration problems worse by repealing important parts of the law like the prevention of an illegal arrival claiming asylum which the Conservatives enacted just before departing. Scrapping Rwanda intensified the small boats problem, as some were going to Ireland instead with Rwanda looming. Labour are considering opening up the UK to much more migration from the EU which had been successfully controlled post Brexit.

Labour inherited a shortage of energy and expensive energy prices. They decided to make the position worse by pushing for more renewables at much higher prices, and by re instating a complete ban on new UK oil and gas development.

Labour inherited a fairly successful housing policy which had boosted new homes to 200,000 a year or 1 million over the Parliament as promised. They have added to cost pressures in building, helped put up longer term interest rates and added tax threats to property ownership. They have seen housing output fall whilst promising 300,000 a year or 1.5 m for this Parliament. No expert thinks they will get anywhere near the target.

Labour did not inherit a broken economy. The first half of 2024 saw the UK become the fastest growing G7 economy. The run up to the tax raising Labour budget and the budget itself slowed the economy badly. Growth had been damaged by covid lockdowns in earlier years.

Labour inherited 2% inflation, after the bad monetary mistakes of 2022 by the Bank of England which Ministers failed to stop and which had triggered a high inflation for a year. Labour’s tax on jobs, pay awards and other inflationary measures has almost doubled the inherited rate to 3.8% with the Bank expecting it to go above 4%.

Labour inherited low and falling unemployment, down to 4% from the 7.8% in 2010 when Labour was last in office. Labour have put it up to 4.8% with more rises to come, thanks to the tax on jobs and extra regulations hitting employers.

Labour inherited a booming services sector trade, especially with non EU, and improving trade generally. Their EU re set threatens to damage non EU trade without gaining any big wins for our exports to the EU.

Labour inherited a public sector with low productivity. They granted large pay awards with no productivity conditions attached, and proceeded to hire more staff to perpetuate the productivity problem.

Labour created its own problems by offering to give the Chagos islands away with a large dowry, something Conservative Ministers refused to do. They have made a mess of policing demonstrations and following up on the rape gangs.

The Conservatives did a good job in boosting standards of Maths and English in state schools through a combination of Academies and the phonics method. Labour are undermining the Academies and the progress made.The PISA tables saw the UK at 28th in maths and 25th in  English in 2009, and at 11 th in each in 2023. Expect to see these ratings fall this year.

The Epping sex offender has long been the most infamous recent illegal migrant into the UK. Protests have  been held about him as Epping residents try to get the hotel emptied of male migrants so close to local schools. Ministers have had  to answer questions about him in interviews. They have assured us he will be deported after a spell in jail for his crime.

The prison staff would know this was a celebrity offender, being watched carefully by locals, by the national Media, and by Ministers from the PM downwards. So how come they made a mistake and let him out? How come when he himself told them there was something wrong and sought re entry to the prison they waved him away? Why did they give him money so he could buy a rail ticket To London where he could disappear?

The PM and Home Secretary say they condemn this event and will demand explanations. The Labour spin doctors who blamed every civil service bungle on Conservative PMs and Ministers now say we should not blame the PM   and Ministers for faults in a prison, Why not, they did. Why not, as they are the ultimate bosses and have provided new laws and new policies through personal leadership on this very issue of asylum seekers and offending.They also demanded more early releases.

It is difficult to believe this was a mistake of just one officer given the procedures they must go through to release someone from custody. It clearly was compounded by the officers who confirmed the prisoner was free to go when he tried to re enter the prison , then asked advice on where he should go. Doubtless as well PM and Home  Secretary instructions to go for more early releases and their watering down borders also played their part.

Here’s a thought. If the public sector got back to working as efficiently as it did in 2019 there would be no black hole in the budget. The Chancellor would not be rummaging through the left’s jumble sale of taxes on the better off, code for anyone who works hard or dares to run a business or save.

According to EY if public sector productivity had kept up with private sector productivity since 2019 we would be £80 bn better off. My estimate say if public sector productivity had not fallen the state would be around £30  bn a year better off. Total public sector productivity is 4% down.

It should shock more people that public sector productivity is still well below 2019 levels. It should be screaming headlines. Labour backbenchers should be demanding action. Billions have been pushed into the NHS by the last and the present government. The public sector has spent a fortune on new computers and smarter software. So why the fall off in labour productivity? Why a negative return on all that investment?

It is a sobering thought that all this century the public sector has missed out on the big advances in productivity elsewhere, whilst stinging the taxpayer for the digital revolution costs. Even worse for 25 years there has been no overall public sector productivity gain. It fell under Labour up to 2010, rose under Coalition/Conservative to 2019, then tumbled under covid.

We  have all been made to find out about public services through impersonal websites, make payments electronically, try to get our queries answered by computers standing in for staff, yet staff numbers have gone up. What are they all doing? Why do service users have to kept apart from these additional people who are meant to serve us? Why so many more managers and fewer useful people to help us keep up with increasing regulatory  and tax demands the aggressive computers impose on us?

The latest sad twists in the story of Mr Windsor have re opened the question of  what should  he do, where should he live and what should he be called. It was a long time ago he gave up all royal functions . It has raised constitutional issues and now involves Parliament.

The King has rightly agreed Mr Windsor should lose the titles and honours bestowed upon him. He and the PM have decided to accept the offer not to use the titles rather than removing them. Removal requires an Act of Parliament.  This would likely pass quickly  and not be opposed. It would be possible to get Opposition agreement to safe passage if it was the wish of  both King and PM. It should include taking Mr  Windsor out of the line of succession, unlikely though that is.

It appears Mr Windsor paid a substantial sum for what is now a rent free lease on the large Crown property. It appears Mr Windsor can continue to live there as long as he carries out the costly maintenance provisions. The total costs of staff, heating, maintenance and other running costs will require a substantial income which will need to come from personal effort or inherited investments.

It seems likely a Select Committee will now enquire into the Crown estates and the leases it offers. Clearly any property leased to a member of the royal family not wholly engaged in royal  duties for the state should be a commercial lease at market prices. The Committee may wish not just to  check the commercial terms of key leases but to consider how much state property should be available for the royal family, its relation to the sovereign grant, and on what terms. It needs to take account of the role of the royals in maintaining and improving state property, ensuring continuity of use for main properties and acting as hosts for many state occasions in those properties.

It would be much better if Mr Windsor moved somewhere else for a new more private life. Living abroad like Prince Harry would work better. Any royal family member who wishes to earn a living from commerce and contacts should not be a part time active royal receiving taxpayer support.A Minister of the Crown has to give up all remunerated and private sector activities the day they take office to avoid all conflicts and vulnerabilities to showing unfair favouritism to people and companies that pay them  .