Author: johnredwood

Nigel Farage was right to condemn the statements of a Reform volunteer filmed by an undercover Channel 4 team. He was also right  to ask about who the man was and why he volunteered for that particular canvass.

The media is very selective about where it goes for under cover reporting and what facts it is keen to check. It is right to condemn racist and homophobic language. I do not recall undercover reports into anti Semitism in the Labour Party though that has been a worrying problem. There has not been much undercover reporting of extremist Middle Eastern terrorist groups operating in the U.K.

The BBC and mainstream commercial media have been keen to fact check Brexit and Trump supporters. They are far less keen to fact check net zero  campaigners or campaigners for more money for public administration and Councils. When Labour and Lib Dem’s say we can decarbonise more quickly what checks do they apply to these unlikely claims? When they say renewable power is cheaper why don’t they point out this usually excludes grid, back up and green tax costs? Why do they allow people to go unchallenged who tell us closing our oil and gas cuts CO 2 when importing LNG instead increases it?

Nor will the mainstream media allow a rational debate on the disastrous run of Bank of England, Treasury and OBR forecasts. Their wrong inflation forecasts gave us an unnecessary high inflation followed by a small recession. Their wrong deficit forecasts stifled a growth policy and fuelled austerity.

When Councils are pleading poverty why do the media never give the actual large total cash sums paid to each Council along with the substantial up lift each year?

Recent polls show Reform just a point or two behind the Conservatives, with one showing them 3% ahead. They are the clear winners of the election campaign if you believe the polls.

The polls show both Labour and Conservative weakening a little over the campaign, with Labour sometimes dipping below 40% and the Conservatives struggling around 20%. In 2017 in the election the Conservatives polled 42% and Labour 40%, a combined total of 82% with no majority of seats for either. Instead today their combined total is around 60% but Labour is forecast to have a huge majority of MP s. Why?

There is a frustration that the two parties are so alike. They both backed COVID lockdowns. They both backed printing large sums of money which proved inflationary. They both back OBR orthodoxy which makes a growth policy difficult. They have both presided over large increases in NHS waiting lists, Labour in Wales and Conservatives in England. They both backed the Windsor framework limiting the opportunities of Brexit. Neither proposed a good pruning of EU bureaucracy and regulations. Both allowed large scale migration.

Reform have tapped into these frustrations, but have not proposed answers that can right the wrongs. Their answer to the Bank of England disasters is to impose a £35 bn tax like charge on commercial banks . Why don’t they demand an end to the colossal Bank losses coming from needlessly selling long bonds at a loss? That would save a lot of money for tax cuts.

Their answer to the small boats is to turn them round or send them back. Border Force say that is impossible and refuse to do it. Lawyers are ready to show it is illegal.France refuses to let the people land.  Reform  want lower legal migration, but that is now at last government policy.They could identify the further categories they would ban or restrict.

Reform have taken up scrapping IR 35 and raising the VAT threshold for small business, ideas I spent the last Parliament promoting. I agree with those.

Reform want proportional representation. I disagree. Whilst our system can  mean the majority have to put up with a government that only got 43% of the vote the system has two big advantages over PR. We elect a named MP for a constituency which makes MPs much more attentive to local views and needs. A government has the votes to keep its promises so we can judge them at the next election. PR systems usually bring weak governments. The parties form a coalition by ditching the promises to voters that got them elected making accountability difficult or impossible. The result of the combined actions of Reform and the One Nation Conservative leadership if the polls are right will be to visit on us a Labour government that may have a lower vote share than Labour led by Jeremy Corbyn gained in 2017  but have a large majority of MPs giving it a lot of potential power if it can keep its party together.

 

 

 

 

So far the UK’s ambition to be the Saudi Arabia of wind has put in an impressive 29GW of capacity. On a good day when there is plenty of wind and total demand is only around 30 GW this might deliver half our power needs. On a day of low wind, and when winter demand is over 40GW it might be 1-2%. It is true the cost of supplying the capacity and therefore of the power has come down as turbines have been scaled up and their capacity cost has fallen. Since 2010 levy support and contracts for difference have cost us an extra £80bn plus for renewable power (to 2023). Current electricity bills are around £100 higher thanks to green levies.

Labour and Lib Dems say we can switch over to all no carbon electricity by 2030 and that this will be cheaper. Both these claims seem unlikely. Labour say to get to all carbon free they need to install an additional 87 GW of capacity, allowing plenty of margin over the demand of 30-45 GW depending on time of day and weather. As most of this will be wind, and as the sun does not shine during long dark evenings and early mornings in winter it will still require stand by gas generators and all those interconnectors to import. The truth is we have already become very import dependent, with imports at over one fifth of our needs even on sunny low demand summer days when the wind dies down. We have been closing fossil fuel stations down before having the renewable reliable capacity (with storage)  to replace them

There seems little likelihood that the UK can plan, permit and install anything like 87 GW of renewable capacity in the next six years. The last auction to supply capacity did not go well as the prices offered were unattractive. The lesson was the Regulator needs to allow considerably higher prices to get companies to come forward to offer new capacity. Investors are going to be wary of the opportunities given the history of windfall taxes, price controls and changes of policy. These are all likely to get worse if we have a change of government to Labour.

Labour and Lib Dem buy the idea of cheaper power because they assume gas prices will climb higher and stay there, so wind energy looks cheap in comparison. Instead in recent months gas prices have retraced most of the giddy climb they experienced when Europe determined to get rid of its dependence on imported Russian gas and the Ukraine war sent the price spiralling. Hitting a peak of £6 a therm, it is now back to 80p.

The amount of capacity they envisage would also require a large expansion of the grid with pylons straddling many more landscapes.

 

 

I see debate about disagreements within the Conservative party. It is true there have been important debates in recent years over lockdowns, money printing, migration levels, Brexit wins,  ways of controlling small boats, tax levels and other issues of great interest to voters.

It is also the case that over the last year those who wanted changes to economic and borders policies and to Brexit implementation did not challenge the leadership, put in letters or seek to undermine Ministers. There were discussions with Ministers who decided it was best to run a largely One Nation policy. Ministers  argued that the threat to the Conservative  party  came from Labour and Lib Dems  to the left so it was important to move in their direction. They wanted to improve relations with the EU, follow international law as interpreted by internationalists, follow Bank and OBR orthodoxy and regulate more against possible harms. Critics of these views accepted they had lost the internal argument and supported the leadership going into an election.

Self styled One Nation Conservatives have been very vocal in recent years, arguing that the Conservative party and government was correct to shift to the left to command more support. George Osborne from outside Parliament joined with Michael Gove inside to promote this.

In government both the current  Lord Chancellor and Attorney General have been insistent in taking an international lawyer’s view of Treaties  based often on a very debatable view of their impact. This has led to impediments to controlling borders and sorting out the EU’s role in Northern Ireland. Counter proposals by former Attorney Suella  Braverman and past Migration Minister Robert  Jenrick were turned down. The Home Secretary rejected the  idea of strengthening the law against legal challenges, favouring the One Nation approach.

The One Nation Chancellor has preserved the EU originated debt control, trusting OBR 5 year out numbers that are likely to be wrong to constrain the tax cuts needed for faster growth. He has implemented a conventional programme of fiscal consolidation claiming this is necessary to create stability.He rejected ideas of asking the Bank to control its bond losses, to speed restoring lost public sector productivity, and to cut nationalised industries losses. These spending cuts would have allowed cuts in  small business, self employed and income tax.

The One Nation Foreign Secretary has sought to please more overseas countries and international quangos. The U.K. has continued to negotiate at the World Health Organisation which is wanting to take powers over the NHS,when there was considerable opposition to ceding power. He  has shifted to the EU/Spanish view on Gibraltar  and has cosied up to  the EU and Ireland by building on the Windsor framework.

The government put through  various regulatory new laws which were supported by Labour. It abandoned wider ranging repeal and amendment of inherited EU law.

It means we will have a good test of the argument that the way for the Conservatives to win elections is to have plenty of One Nation representation around the Cabinet table and to follow consensus and internationalist policies on the economy, taxation, migration, regulation and our international relations.In a week’s time we will see if this approach did win more votes for Conservatives, or whether it left the Conservative vote too vulnerable to the Reform challenge based on their tougher approach to border control and based on a lower tax growth model.

 

 

 

 

All the time I was an MP I posted critical comments of government, Conservatives and myself that were often misleading or inaccurate to show balance. I deleted attacks on any named individual of whatever party , offensive material and some multiple or over long postings. A few people used to write in criticising anything I wrote, often straining truth and twisting arguments to do so.

A few still do not seem to have understood I am no longer an MP and hold no Conservative  office or role. So stop writing in as if I did. One, for example , told me I had to carry on being an MP until Election Day. I explained I ceased to be an MP on dissolution. He then wanted me to post further criticism saying I should still act as an MP until the election. The rules are quite clear. I should not pretend to be an MP. I have cleared my Parliamentary office and handed in the key. My pass to Parliament has been cancelled. I must not use headed stationery saying I am an MP or use Parliament as my address. I no longer have access to send emails as if from Parliament.

If you want to post here add to the debate about policy. I will not post incessant vendetta contributions based on falsehoods.

The Labour Manifesto is based on offering the best sustained growth in the G7. That means transforming our growth rate, which has been one of the better slow growth rates that characterise the main  European countries, to surpass US growth which has been in the fast lane. I admire the ambition but do not think the policy proposals that accompany it will get anywhere near delivering.

If we want to start catching up with the USA we need to recognise how far we and the EU have fallen behind. EU GDP per head, lower than U.K., is just half the US level. US growth has been around 2% a year in recent years with Europe below 1%.

If we want to overtake the US growth rate we need to consider

1 Switching back to Common Law as we now can. EU Code law is too restrictive and anti innovation.

2. Expand our private equity, angel investing, self employment and small business sectors by a more positive regulatory regime

3 Cut taxes on incomes and enterprise. The US has no federal Inheritance tax and an estates tax on assets above $13 million. 32% Income tax only comes in at $191,ooo a year on the marginal earnings, and the 37% top rate at $609,000.Capital Gains is at 15%.

4. Halve the cost of energy. US energy is much cheaper owing to a willingness to find and extract their own domestic gas and oil.
5. Onshore more industry and investment as the US is doing

6. Government to promote and be a customer for an expanded tec and semi conductor industry,

The U.K. to generate this high growth rate could attract more business investment and raise more business revenue by putting Corporation tax down to 15%

According to the polls once again the Green Party will poll badly. There is little appetite for their attacks on cars, gas boilers, industrial activities in the U.K. and the domestic oil and gas industry.
The Conservatives have been changing their policy,  accepting that the public is not willing to buy heat pumps and electric cars on the scale Greens think necessary. They have shifted back dates for transition though left in place taxes on car companies that sell too many petrol and diesel vehicles.
Labour have backed an improbable idea of closing down all our gas fired power stations by 2030 but have cancelled the idea of ending gas boilers by 2035.
Reform say they would stop the spending on net zero transition as they do not support this.
Lib Dem’s are closer to the Greens but wish to talk about other things. They major on being against sewage discharges to rivers, offering fines on companies and regulation which we already have as their answer!
Many voters think the climate does change but are not ready or able to buy electric cars and heat pumps. They are concerned if the U.K. closes down its industries and oil and gas extraction only to rely on imports based on fossil fuels.

So the road to net zero is on the ballot paper. Will it impact the overall result?

 

Labour, Conservative and Reform on 80% of the vote want a growth policy. Greens and Lib Dem’s are not so sure.

So what do we think of the ideas for growth?

Taxation

Countries grow faster that set lower tax rates. Ireland has shown how to hoover up overseas  investment by setting a low rate of business tax. They collect so much more per head as a result. The U.K. had many more self employed before bringing in IR 35 tax. More self employed means a more responsive economy and a bigger nursery for growth businesses. High taxes on wealth, savings income and gains drives rich people away and assists a brain drain. The more you tax Non Dom’s  the fewer rich people stay to pay. If you introduce so called Windfall profits taxes and forget to take them off when the windfall dwindles you put companies off investing or even coming to your country.

If you want faster growth you need to be realistic about progress to net zero. Charge high carbon and emissions taxes and you close factories and power stations. Ban fossil fuel products too soon and they will be made somewhere else. Keep your own oil and gas in the ground and you will import your fossil fuels, losing well paid jobs and tax revenues at home.

If you want faster growth you need to keep regulations under control, leaving companies free to direct themselves more. Common law systems work better than code systems, allowing you to do anything you like that is not banned where Code systems only allow what the lay down.

There needs to be a sector by sector review of damaging taxes and over the top regulation. The government needs to get better at buying things, encouraging more U.K. supply by its purchasing. It needs to switch farm subsidies from wilding to food production. It needs to take back control of more of our fish and promote a bigger industry. The vast national forests need to grow and harvest more softwood. Steel policy needs to change to keep U.K. blast furnaces. We need to build a new fleet of medium sized nuclear power stations and urgently commission more gas generation back up. We need to get more of our own oil and gas out of the ground in place of imports. We need to expand our water and waste water capacity.

That is a few of the things that would speed faster growth.

The latest polls show around 41% wanting Labour, down on the start of the campaign. 38% want Conservative or Reform. So one fifth of the electorate wants something different, two fifths want Labour and the two fifths of a Conservative nature are having a row about policy and who should lead the right.

With numbers like that it will be an unhappy country if it sees an outsized Labour majority, a squeezed Conservative opposition and a handful of Reform MPs which is what pollsters are saying. The truth is the outcome rests on those millions of former Conservative voters who are currently undecided and excluded from regular poll results.  If they stay at home or vote Reform then we get the outsized Labour majority. If in the end more of them vote Conservative we get a bigger Conservative party.

The most important takeaways are how 60% of the public do not want a Labour government and how half of past Conservative voters feel let down by the current government. If an election was just a verdict on a government then it is clear the Conservatives would fare badly. As it is primarily a choice of a new government it is more difficult for voters. You often have to vote for a government that is far from perfect to avoid one that will be far worse.

Some former Conservatives say they want their former party to do badly to force change. It is difficult to see how Nigel Farage could take over the leadership of the Conservative party as he hints if he did win a seat whilst  many Conservatives lost. The ones who survived would not be feeling friendly to him and as a non member of the party he would be ineligible to lead it.

I find this election difficult to call. If the polls are right the U.K. will suffer from a Labour government a majority do not want and an Opposition too small to make much impact. Maybe voters will surprise. Do you want this out turn or can you see a way to stop it? What do you think all those undecideds will do?

 

8 years on from the Brexit vote let us celebrate the great Brexit wins.

By far and away the most important is we are now free to make our own decisions through elections and Parliament. The fact that so far governments have made little use of this cannot take away from the great liberation that comes from knowing we can now if we wish.

It is a great win that the EU is busily borrowing an extra Euro 800 billion and none of that now will add to our debt pile. Our share would have proved very costly.

It is a great win that thousands of new laws, regulations and decisions have been made since we left and none of those apply to us. The EU for example will not be able to receive the latest Apple technology on Apple devices  owing to their regulations.

It is a great win that the UK has now become the world’s second largest exporter of services, and services are the biggest part of our trade. The new and rolled over trade Agreements we are signing have chapters allowing greater freedom of trade in services which the EU used to ignore in its trade agreements for us.

It is a win that VAT has been taken off green products and off female hygiene products. We had to impose it on them under EU law.

We no longer have to have open borders with the continent. The government failure to control legal migration in recent years was an unwise UK choice, which is now being corrected with tighter restrictions on the issue of visas. We can now set a fairer policy that has the same conditions for people from the rest of the world and from the EU.

After a too generous deal on exit the UK is now saving its large annual contributions to the EU budget. As the EU budget continues to climb so our savings mount. The NHS is getting far more than an extra £350 m a week as set out on the side of the campaign  bus.

We have removed tariffs from 20% of our imported product lines completely on top of the 27% that were EU tariff free, making things cheaper for customers.

We have joined the large and fast growing Trans Pacific Partnership which the EU has not joined.

We are planning new laws to improve animal welfare and limit the transport of live animals which we could not do in the EU

We have increased our fish quotas for our domestic  industry and need to restore more at the end of the transition period.

We have introduced more Freeports with more relaxations of trade rules than the EU would allow, with a more generous package to promote their growth.