Author: johnredwood

From July 2010 the Capital Gains Tax rate rose from a sensible 18% under the Labour government to an uncompetitive 28%. Presumably the idea was to collect more revenue from it. Even the Treasury, however, expected a dip in the first full year after its implementation (2012-13, as CGT is paid the year after the gains on which it is calculated). They then expected revenues to pick up.

In the 2013 Budget the Treasury gave new forecasts, where they accepted that CGT revenues would be lower in 2012-13 at £3.9bn but would bounce up to £5.1bn the following year. By the time of Budget 2014 they had to revise the figures again. This time they forecast revenues lower in both 2012-13 and 2013-14 at £3.9bn in each year, £400 m down on the £4.3bn collected in 2011-12. A massive £1.2 bn of forecast revenue had gone missing, despite the economy growing faster than they expected. Clearly the taxpayer has lost out so far from the increase in the rate of CGT. If it had stayed at 18% 2011-12 might have come in a bit lower, as there would have been no need for some to pre-empt the higher rate in the week or two of rumours that preceded the imposition in June 2010. The following two years would doubtless have seen considerably more revenue than the Treasury will receive at the higher rate.

CGT is the most easily avoidable tax. Many individuals and companies simply refuse to sell assets which are sitting on large gains, even though they would rather switch them into something more useful for their current needs. Rich individuals who have power to switch the domicile of themselves or their assets find it more worthwhile to do so if they are thinking of selling something at a good profit. Individuals with losses as well as gains make sure they take offsetting losses when rejigging their investments. High rates of CGT are probably stopping people selling second homes in London, even though they may not need them any more, helping to fuel the boom.

I remember making the case against a higher rate of CGT at the time of the 2010 budget. The Lib Dems wanted a 40% rate, I wanted to keep Labour’s rate, and we ended up with a compromise. It’s more proof that the Treasury do not have a good model of tax receipts. Just as they under estimate rising revenues when rates are cut, so in this case they have grossly overestimated the gains so far from a higher CGT rate.

 

One of the worst features of the EU is the way it wants to suppress people’s natural senses of identity. England is the country they do not allow on a map. It is a curious paradox that the EU wants to prevent the UK government having a new relationship that works for us, yet wishes to bolster the other member states who face separatist problems. Having encouraged senses of regional identity, the EU now backs national governments by telling Catalonia it has to stay with Spain, and  the Veneto to stay in Italy  even though a strong message has been sent in a recent informal referendum. Above all, the EU wants to keep the Ukraine together when the government of the Ukraine visibly cannot govern large parts of the country  because consent has broken down.

The EU’s  dislike of England and our approach to supranational government is fuelling a wish  for England to leave the EU, and will be sorted out when the UK or the rest of the UK minus Scotland  finally has our EU referendum. In many areas the EU backs defensive national governments who think they can ignore separatist movements. In the case of England the EU antagonises  the Conservative part of the Coalition government by its often unhelpful response to UK wishes for less interference and more freedom.

The western powers are right to say that yesterday’s referendum in Donetsk and Lugansk was neither legal nor properly conducted. Those wanting out may have voted more than once in some cases, and those who wished to stay in the Ukraine may have taken the advice of the Ukrainian government to stay away from the polls. However, no-one can doubt that a large number of people in Eastern Ukraine do not accept the legitimacy of the current Kiev government, and do fear its intentions towards them.

At the very least the Ukrainian government should talk to the rebels. Sending in the army and trying to remove them by force is not the right answer, and will intensify the civil war in the making. It will increase  the bitterness on both sides. The Ukrainian regime needs to discuss whether a much greater degree of autonomy within the Ukraine would satisfy enough easterners. Are there guarantees that the Ukrainian government can offer on  Russian language and customs that would be credible?

If it is not possible to find a way of jointly governing in the Ukrainian state, then the Ukrainian government needs to offer a legal and properly organised referendum with sensible propositions on the ballot paper that could attract consent.

The UK has offered Scotland a referendum despite the absence of SNP MPs in large numbers at Westminster, and in good time whilst the UK can  govern Scotland with consent. The people of Scotland will now decide whether they wish to renew their consent to Union government or whether they wish to be self governing. If they decide Yes to the Union they will  understand that has to be for a considerable time, as unions should not  be made and broken too often.  That could be a model for any  part of a European state that is unhappy about its current status. It is not just the EU that needs to amend its ways of tackling these issues, but it is the EU that has played an important part in fomenting regional identities which may  now affect not just the individual member states but also EU policy  itself.

 

Today I read that I can get a train ticket to Birmingham for £6, to Stoke for £8 and to Leeds for £14.60 from London. Doesn’t sound like a crowded railway at the moment.

 

The legal position over this bid is very clear. Labour legislated in 2002 to stop Ministers interfering in future bids and deals outside defence and the media. In 2004 they signed up to the European Mergers Regulation, which means that larger company bids involving businesses with activities in more than one member state of the EU are under the sole legal control of the EU Competition authorities. As I put to Dr Cable, and as he agreed, the Astra Zeneca potential bid falls to be determined by the EU and by the EU alone.

However, the actual position has become more ambiguous than the legal position, thanks to the behaviour of Pfizer and Dr Cable. Dr Cable has taken legal advice and constantly stresses that he is “neutral” about the bid. He has to be. However, he has also made clear that he is looking for a role in the debate over the future of Astra Zeneca, and has been aided in this by the actions of Pfizer. The bidding company has decided that it will co-operate with the UK government regardless of the legal realities.

Their decision to do this reflects the realities of power. Whilst Dr Cable cannot block their bid, Pfizer will need the co-operation of parts of the UK government if they are to increase their presence in the UK successully. The NHS is their  largest customer. They may need planning permissions for new facilities. They may want government help with training and apprenticeships. The various ways in which a very large state apparatus impinges on a pharmaceutical company argues for a good relationship from the outset. If Dr Cable wants to discuss the future, then he will be able to. If Parliament wants to examine the issues, then Pfizer will have to put up executives to come and talk.

Pfizer may offer indications or promises on future jobs, the extent of their research commitment, and their future UK presence. These may be well meant, but it is difficult  for them to be binding. Astra Zeneca may offer something similar. As the past shows, they like Pfizer have been reducing their workforce in the face of falling turnover.

The truth is which ever management gets the prize to manage these assets in the future, they will have to adjust their plans depending on their sales and profits. We will never know whether Astra or Pfizer will keep more jobs or generate better results, because only one will win and have the chance to show us what they can do.

It is bizarre that so many UK politicians have learnt so little that they think they can second guess this deal and reach the answer which will guarantee all those jobs and facilities for the foreseeable future. The buying habits of drug consumers, and  changes made in other countries affecting their relative competitiveness, will determine whether we keep these jobs or not. The large pharmaceutical companies are having to cut costs one way or another, so redundancies cannot be ruled out whoever wins.

 

Mr Miliband and Mr Clegg have been too ready to condemn the idea that the UK needs a new relationship with the EU. They are in denial about the massive amount of power the EU wields over our government. They should try reading a bit more.  They should start with a recent publication of the UK government entitled  “Europe 2020: UK National Reform Programme 2014”.

This extraordinary and little discussed document is 91 pages long. It is the UK’s government response to the “country specific recommendations addressed to the UK by Heads of state or government at the European Council  in June 2013….” and reports “against policies in support of the Europe 2020  Strategy priorities…”

The UK was told to do six things. The first is  to “implement a reinforced budgetary strategy… ensure the correction of the excessive deficit….prioritising timely capital expenditure with high economic returns…in order to raise revenue make greater use of the standard rate of VAT”.

I have no disagreement with the EU’s view that we need to remove the excessive deficit. My complaint is that it should be none of their business, but something we settle here in the UK. As a good European Mr Miliband under this requirement would have little scope to change the current UK approach to spending and borrowing. It is interesting that the EU is effectively critical of Labour’s heavy cuts in public capital spending which they put in in 2010. Their words seeking more public capital expenditure do not seem to include HS2 as that is not a project showing “high economic returns”. Mr Miliband might also worry about the EU’s belief in raising VAT further, when he has been an opponent of higher VAT.

The second requirement is to “increase housing supply, including through further liberalisation of spatial planning laws…take steps to improve the functioning of rental markets, in particular by making longer rental terms attractive to both tenants and landlords”. This seems to have already inspired Mr  Miliband to adopt just such policies, so he will probably have no difficulty with it. However, the EU also warns against land and property taxes which impede residential construction, which he might find more annoying.

The third is to do more work on training and apprenticeships.

The fourth is to improve work incentives through fair welfare reforms, and to accelerate measures to cut the costs of childcare. This includes support for Universal Credit, a policy Mr Miliband is not keen on.

The fifth is to improve the supply of bank finance and strengthen competition in banking. Labour in office did the opposite by encouraging all too many inappropriate banking mergers.

The sixth is to “facilitate a timely increase in network infrastructure investment…provide a stable regulatory framework for investment in new energy capacity”. I love the irony of this one. The EU has required the UK to generate more power from non carbon sources, and is now querying the level of subsidy needed to do just that!

The UK government has tabled 51 statistical indicators to allow the EU to monitor progress on these matters and criticise us in the future if insufficient progress is made.

Doubtless pro Europeans will claim that this is guidance, not mandatory in the case of the UK. That is not entirely true. This work includes, for example, the renewable energy and carbon dioxide reduction targets which the UK has to follow under EU law. The UK’s position in the EU “semester” or common budget controls is ambiguous, with the EU’s role clearly growing despite the lack of a power to fine the UK if it does not comply with the EU’s budgetary demands for the UK domestic budget.

All of this control , guidance and legal requirement over central issues of public policy is appropriate for countries in a currency union moving rapidly towards a political union. It is not appropriate for an independent country which wishes to have good relations and plenty of trade with the neighbours. Were Mr Miliband to become Prime Minister, he might start to find it all too intrusive, as clearly some of it is not in accordance with his views on budgets and tax.

 

 

 

There is one strong reason why nationalising the railways would be an odd idea – they are largely nationalised already.

All the track, signals, train pathway timetabling and stations are owned by a monopoly business largely financed by taxpayers and entirely owned by taxpayers. The train companies lease trains and run services over the nationalised tracks under strict controls from the Rail regulator and the Transport Department. They have to conform to five year centralised plans, and they gain near monopoly rights to use given regional track systems. The only element of competition in the whole thing is the occasional competition for the monopoly franchises. The majority of the revenue to sustain Network Rail comes in the form of taxpayer financed subsidy.

When the railways were privatised a two tier structure was set up. There was a privatised monopoly track owner, and regional monopoly train franchise holders. This greatly limited the amount of competition introduced by privatisation, but even this limited competition administered a shake up and reversed the long term decline in rail use that had characterised the whole post war nationalised industry experience. Labour re nationalised the track and stations, though pretended they had not by holding all the assets and shares in a so called private company which just happens to be financed and owned by taxpayers.

Today the East coast mainline franchise is run as a nationalised monopoly, and Labour is looking at doing the same for some of the other franchises as they expire were they to win the next election. That would be a good way to stop the modest  cost and price competition we currently enjoy  and would help  limit innovation. For four decades a fully nationalised and integrated monopoly industry presided over large cash losses for taxpayers, high  and rising fares, declining train usage, little innovation and poor service levels. Why would a future completely nationalised BR be any different?

Fares for commuters on crowded routes into our main cities are too high and service levels not good enough. Too many cross country and mainline express trains fail to attract nearly enough paying passengers, whilst a limited number of trains and routes beyond the commuter lines suffer from overcrowding. We need more innovation, not less, more competitive pressure to do more for less as the airlines have done, new thinking on how to improve service and allow more of us more fo the time to choose the train for our travel. That requires a more competitive industry with more private capital and management, not a return to BR days.  Where challenger railway companies have been allowed they have helped lower prices and improve the range and quality of services.

 

We have recently learned that following a recalculation of GDP for Nigeria, it emerged last year as Africa’s largest economy with a GDP of $509 billion.  It overtook South Africa in terms of total output, but still remains a long way behind in per capita income given the much greater population in Nigeria.

What should give us pause for thought is how small this output still is for a country of 170 million people. It means Nigeria’s output is still lower than London’s, with just 8 million people. It should put our criticisms of the UK economy into context, and reminds us how much more there is to do to tackle poverty in other parts of the world.