What I said to The Sunday Telegraph was if Labour wanted to get back to their budget plans they had to stop spending money like water and cut out waste and less desirable spending. They are going to need an emergency package to put right all the damage they are doing by wasting and borrowing too much, and to cut taxes like Stamp Duty and VED which they raised too high.
I think George Osborne has been exactly right to refuse to offer us the 2010 or 2011 budget in advance, given the huge Labour black hole already apparent in the figures. THe likely development is an even bigger black hole in the government’s figures, given the way they are spending.
Category: Blog
Amongst so many Gold medals, let’s remember the first cross Channel swimmer.
Today we celebrate the remarkable feat of a great swimmer. Captain Matthew Webb became the first person to swim the English Channel through his epic swim on the 24th and 25th of August 1875.
Webb first attained fame through diving into the Atlantic in an attempt to save a drowning passenger from his ship. He subsequently resigned as a Cunard Captain to take up professional swimming. On August 12th 1875 his first attempt to swim the Channel failed. 12 days later he covered himself in porpoise oil to keep warm and swam out from Dover. 21 hours 45 minutes later he staggered ashore in Calais, after swimming 39 miles in a roundabout course, battling against the outcoming tide from France.
His feat earned him instant fame and fortune. He was acclaimed on his return journey to his native Shropshire. The story goes that even a pig put his trotter up on to a wall to see the returning hero. He went on to float for 60 hours in the Westminster Aquarium, to beat his own floating record in Boston, and to defeat the US champion swimmer.
Unfortunately in 1883 he jumped from a boat into the swirling waters below the Niagara falls. 10 minutes later his vigorous swim ended in disaster as he was pulled down by the strength of the currents and killed.
Such pioneering spirit was a proud part of Victorian England. It is good to see our young athletes today capture this spirit again, believing they too can perform great feats. As it says on Webb’s grave “Nothing great is easyâ€. So swimming across the Niagara river proved.
Bosworth – what did the Tudors do for us?
Some of my friends are both Catholics and Eurosceptics. They are sensible people, and rightly see nothing contradictory in that stance. The once Catholic kingdom of France is now a secular Republic, and once Catholic Spain is no longer an aggressive exporter of the faith by force of arms. Protestant Germany is an important motor of the EU. The forces which impelled England to the Protestant anti Spanish anti French side in the wars of religion have mercifully dissipated.
I make this point because I was thinking about yesterday’s anniversary of the Battle of Bosworth. It wasn’t much of battle in many ways. 5000 troops loyal to the invading Henry, the Lancastrian, took on maybe 12000 troops of Richard, the Yorkist King. In less than two hours the Stanleys switched sides and the battle was over, as their substantial force completely changed the odds.
There were two remarkable things about Bosworth. The King himself died on the battlefield, with no obvious Yorkist successor capable of claiming the title. His early death ended the battle. Henry Tudor and his heirs arrived in triumph, and proved able enough to unite England and Wales under their rule and put an end to the long and miserable history of succession squabbles and mini wars which had characterised much of the fifteenth century.
So I asked myself, What did the Tudors do for us? Time and space does not permit a full answer, for there is so much. If you like me saw any of the Globe productions, then just look around you. The flowering of English poetry, drama, music, art and architecture in the later Tudor period was remarkable.
The Tudors certainly knew how to spin and to brand. They blazoned the portcullis and crown logo on so much, the constantly travelled their country bringing government to the people. They left us a version of history which portrayed their achievements in a good light. Whether it was Henry VIII on the field of the cloth of gold, or Elizabeth seeing off the Armada, they established England as a force to be reckoned with. They played the courtiers off against each other, ensuring power was mainly brokered by them at court.
Above all they led England and Wales decisively into Reformation Europe. This was much more than a religious choice which some of my readers will now regret and criticise. It was a general statement of foreign policy and even of economic policy. It meant our country aligned with the smaller countries of western Europe, with Holland and the German states, against the bureaucratic Empire and against the Catholic superpowers. It meant the property of the monasteries passed into new landowners hands which helped power and economic advance based on enterprise and family capital. It meant the anti clericalism of the English was allowed reasonable freedom. I see the anticlericalism of the 1520s and 1530s as the forerunner of the scepticism about big government and expert opinion we still see today.
The Tudors ensured England and Wales would be a united country, a unity that has never been split to this day. They established a stronger rule of law from the centre, but relies on substantial devolution of power to local JPs, municipal authorities and local landowners. They had to recognise the limits of their power in an age before instant communication and huge government budgets.
Fuel Poverty and Tax Poverty – what Gord gives with one hand he takes with another
The government’s own “Fuel poverty†adviser has been on TV and radio telling us that we will have more people in fuel poverty this winter than at any time for the last ten years. Well, there’s a surprise! I wonder how much he and his staff get paid to come out with such obvious statements. If energy prices go up by a third or by half, and people’s incomes scarcely keep up with general inflation, of course more will find it difficult to pay the fuel bills. Apparently fuel poverty is when your fuel bill is more than 10% of your net income. They will also find it more difficult to pay the Tax bills, having to pay for all those fuel poverty advisers and civil servants workign out the figures. Fuel poverty should be set alongside food poverty, travel poverty, and TV poverty, when those things rise too high as a proportion of income, or alongside my favourite and the most common, Tax poverty.The truth is there is Poverty, pure and simple, and it’s getting worse thanks to this government’s failed economic strategy.
Of course I think it is worrying that many people this winter will fear both the fuel bills and the food bills. The recent price rises have hit those on low incomes and no incomes harder than those on higher incomes. But if you don’t want to call it simple poverty why not call it Tax poverty, for the 10 p tax band abolition hit many of those people very hard, as does the increased petrol tax and the prospective rise in VED on older cars. If they paid less tax, people on lower incomes would have more to pay for fuel.
We need not wonder why the Government’s Fuel Poverty expert was let loose on TV. It clearly means a benefit package is coming soon. The PM is preparing a benefit pay out to people struggling with fuel bills, to show he is in touch and cares. No worry that the nation cannot afford any more public spending. No surprise if it has to be paid for out of increased borrowing rather than from making savings elsewhere. Do not expect a proper programme to increase energy capacity and to generate more power at home any time soon. The government has been dithering for 10 years without a proper energy policy, waiting for the lights to go out as power stations age and give up. This is the government which has given us more dependence on imported oil and gas and then wonders why it is all so dear.
Clearly the PM still has not learnt anything from recent by election defeats and from the sorry run of Opinion Polls. The more of our money he spends, and the more he borrows, the less popular he becomes. People on low incomes do not want one off winter hand outs to see the government through a political hole. They want an economy with job opportunities to lift them out of low income altogether. They want energy industries that are expanding capacities and putting prices up by less.They want enough money to pay all the bills.
George Osborne produced a very detailed and well researched speech this week demonstrating that people from low income areas and low income backgrounds are doing worse educationally and in terms of job opportunities now than when Labour first came to power. Far from narrowing the gap, they have allowed the gap to grow. The gap has not just grown because the rich have got richer – nothing wrong with that – but the gap has grown because the poor are struggling more and even less likely to get A levels, get a degree or get a decent job – everything wrong with that. It is the failure to lift and boost the poor that matters. A decade of throwing more money into regional aid and into benefits has failed. More fuel poverty, according to the government’s own adviser, is just a small part of the wider truth. There is more poverty. It’s a poverty of achievement and ambition as well as a shortage of money. That’s why we need a new approach to schools, to training and to incentives for work. That’s why we need to tackle tax poverty, for too many people at the bottom end of the income scale are trapped by Labour’s benefit and tax system.
Data loss – how much more before they see the need to cancel the ID computer?
You would have thought after all the fuss over data loss so far under this government Ministers would have got a grip by now. The hapless Home Secretary once again has to apologise for the incompetence of her department, after all her lectures and promises to have put it right. This is another serious data loss. It shows Ministers are not in control of their departments.
The more this government takes action to make us “secure” the less secure I feel. I will feel a lot less secure if they carry on with their ghastly 1984 plan to put us all on a central ID computer base, at enormous expense to taxpayers. We might as well publish all our personal data the day it goes live, on their record so far with other people’s data. If The Home Secretary wants to keep her job she shouold cancel the project so we can dance in the streets about that, if nothing else.
This is one reason why Parliament should be allowed to sit – to cross examine her. The war in Georgia is another.
Who do you want to beat in the medals table?
As one of many people who is delighted by the huge success of UK competitors in Beijing my delight is the positive one for them, not the negative one that we are beating the Aussies. The rash of stories saying that the true competition is between us and them, and our victory over Australia is sweet is far from the Olympic spirit, and certainly does not chime with my feelings.
There are two things I like about this Olympics.
The first is to see new faces on TV of people I have not been told much about in the mainstream media, winning Gold and Silver medals. It is stunning that so many Brits are the best in the world at their chosen sports, and have reached that pinnacle without the media boring us all rigid with details of their private lives, the contents of their fridge and their behaviour on their last night out. Celebrity may sell papers, and personal lives exposed may be what many want, but there are people like me who want to read about what people are good at without having to wade through endless details about which supermarket they use and what they wear. Usually we hear about just two or three competitors who have a “profile†– and sometimes flop at their event. This time we are hearing about an army of great sportsmen and women who have the blessing of little profile, but are just great at what they do.
The second is to see just how many people from the UK can excel at what they do through their own graft and application. We are told that it’s the money and the coaches and the facilities. I am sure they help, but you can’t get away from the fact – and should not want to – that it is also down to the guts, determination, and will to succeed of a new generation of British sports people who will not take losing for an answer. No coach can make a person win a medal unless they make the mental commitment to wanting one, and put the time in to benefit from the coaching. So let’s hear it for our athletes.
The joy is no greater for me because we are taking more medals than Australia. Indeed, I apply a different kind of cricket test to who I support. If there is no Brit in a final then I would naturally support the runner from Jamaica or the swimmer from Australia, as I like to see the cricket playing countries of the world do well. I find I am always welcome in them, that we can do a lot of business in them, and that there is a natural camaraderie and friendship.They do not want to lecture me about the need to change the way my country is governed.
For those who do like joy at others’ failings it is more likely for Eurosceptics to be in our position well above all those EU countries that are constantly lecturing and hectoring us to be “better Europeansâ€, to learn from their success using the “European modelâ€. Whenever I visit many continental countries I am made to defend my Euroscepticism and told that I am wrong to want a freer Europe with less government and less petty minded officiousness everywhere. The more they lecture me to love “European solidarityâ€, to sign Lisbon, and give away the remaining birthrights of our freedoms, the more I feel the opposite. I suspect many Brits who do harbour negative feelings are keener to beat some European countries than Australia.
Better airports at last? Will competition fly in Scotland?
Today brings the judgement of the Competition Commission on the BAA. As an early advocate of competitive airports for London, I look forward to being able to offer at least a couple of cheers for getting some of the way there at last. In an ideal world there would be different owners for each of the three BAA London airports at Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick. Failing that, the Commission should demand that BAA chooses either to own Heathrow, the major airport, or the other two. Even requiring the sale of one would be progress.
Why does competition matter? The current level of service to airlines and to travelling passengers is not good enough, and the prices charged are high. If airlines and passengers have some choice of airport under competing managements, each airport will have to try harder to raise service standards and to cut prices. The current owners of BAA have substantial borrowings. New owners might have more borrowing capacity, to make faster and more substantial improvements that require capital outlays.
Improving the service requires new technology and new thinking. It requires collaboration with the government to raise their game over Passport Control and Security. How many times coming back into England do people face long queues to have their passports checked, simply because there are not enough staff present to deal with the numbers? For outbound passengers the delays are mainly at Security, where too few lines are offered and where the checks are clumsily managed. Passengers who do not know the routine are not asked to use their time in the line to prepare themselves for sending their belongings through the machines, so more time is wasted when they do reach the staff. Each time a disaster or attack occurs more retrospective checks are added on the odd assumption that the next attack will mimic the last one. Instead of using intelligence and detailed checking on people more likely to be terrorists, the system produces general checks on everyone. In contrast Customs where there are never queues target their searches and enquiries, choosing sensible random checks to supplement Intelligence driven thorough checks on people they suspect.
A new owner could seek a sensible security review with the government to seek to streamline the service and make it more effective at the same time. It would also allocate more space to the security checks function so we could have more lines for whatever checks are needed. Passport Control probably has enough space, it just needs more people some of the time. A new owner would talk to airlines about streamlining their check in systems, and raise the game on baggage handling. Above all it would provide more capacity, to cut wasted fuel and delays through aircraft having to circle or taxi awaiting a stand. That would be greener as well as better.
Let’s hope the Competition are bold. This could usher in a much needed improvement for the UK’s airports. Maybe they will even demand a similar disposal in Scotland. It will be interesting to see Scottish reactions. Usually MPs from Scotland favour monopolies rather than the “waste†of competition, and favour more rather than less government involvement in things. That is one of the reasons why Scotland remains poorer than England. Perhaps this time they will be offered a dose of something that works? Will they like it? Could it ever prove catching in the Northern air? It will be an interesting challenge for the Scottish economy, and for Labour struggling to explain the poor economic performance of Scotland compared to London .
When in trouble, the government wants to put taxes up
The only refrain most Labour people in power seem to know is the demand for higher taxes.
No sooner has the Income Tax hike unravelled, than the Vehicle Excise Duty increase comes under fire.
Learning nothing from this, today we hear from the Local Government Minister that Councils should put up Council Car Park charges, as another way to tax motorists off the road.
Using a cloak of green policy and a further urge to nanny us into walking more, the true aim of this Minister is to tell the municipal raiders seeking more cash that they should get it direct from motorists, rather than demanding it in grant requiring the government to get it from motorists.
Any Council which puts Car Park charges and Council taxes up by more than inflation in current conditions is asking to be unpopular. People have had enough and cannot afford any more.
The Chancellor has had to rule out windfall taxes on utilities, urged by many in the Labour movement, and is thinking what to do about further noisy calls to tax the rich who are still here after the last round of taxes on rich foreigners who come to do business in London.
The economic problem the government faces is not the shortage of tax revenue, but the failure to spend all the tax revenue they do raise to best effect. The problem is not that the public sector spends too little, but that it wastes too much for the productive potential of the economy. So often the spending achieves the opposite of what they intend.
I am sure the government intended the huge sums they spent on Northern Rock to protect jobs in that northern business and to shore up the mortgage market. Instead, thanks to EU Competition rules, it does neither. The workforce will be more than halved, and the mortgage book will suffer a similar fate. Huge sums are being wasted on running down the very asset they bought.
Similarly, the move of Railtrack to the public sector Network Rail led to a huge surge in costs to deliver the same amount of track, running up massive borrowings which the markets regard as public sector borrowing (with a Treasury Guarantee) even if the government doesn’t think of them like that.
We now see the public sector is some disarray. This week there will be tube strikes, thanks to Union unhappiness about the pay regime following the financial problems within one of the government’s most expensive and absurd Public/Private Partnerships. The taxpayer was predictably left picking up the bills when it went wrong.
There will be a long period working through this government’s creative borrowings and expensive projects. I expect them to sign up as many as possible in the next few months, to tie hands of an incoming government. If they do it will represent a further deterioration in the UK’s already very overstretched public finances, and mean more grief sorting it all out in due course.
The Labour record is stuck on high taxation, backed by Mr Miliband
It comes as no surprise today to see a poll telling us that David Miliband would be no more successful against David Cameron than Gordon Brown. The problem is primarily economic. Mr Miliband has not put forward an alternative, is not a critic of the PM’s over his poor handling of the economy, and offers no reassurance to the British public that a government under his leadership would change things for the better.
When John Major was in a similar position to Gordon Brown, with the two Michaels (Heseltine and Portillo) widely tipped for his crown and endless speculation about their possible leadership bids, John Major told all of us in Cabinet to put up or shut up. I felt obliged to resign and take the argument to the country that I had been waging for years against his economic stewardship – as a fierce opponent of the ERM, the higher taxes he imposed and the failure to curb public spending. I had been putting (in confidence within government) a consistent alternative and felt I could not “shut up”. Major’s device stopped the two Michaels from prosecuting their leadership ambitions at that stage, and sealed their fate never to lead the party. Unfortunately John Major did not listen to the need for an alternative economic strategy, so that also sealed his.
Gordon Brown would be less at risk of a challenge if he tried what John Major successfully executed as a personal survival strategy as Leader. David Milliband would not run. He would not be able to show he had consistently opposed the mistaken economic policy the government has pursued. I find myself in agreement with both the government spin machine and the official Conservative one that David Miliband is neither the answer to Labour’s problems nor to the country’s. It shows a complete lack of political judgement to allow the story to emerge that Alan Milburn would be his Chancellor. That is no way to win more hearts and minds for a Leadership bid in the left inclining Labour party. It shows a lack of political maturity for someone to be counting so many chickens so soon.
Nice drug – if you can get it on the NHS.
NICE has been in the firing line recently. This body which has the duty to decide which drugs the NHS can buy and which are unsuitable on grounds of efficacy and cost has been caught in the crossfire. On one side the pharmaceutical companies have been running effective campaigns to claim NICE was wrong to reject their new drug. On the other side patient groups have started to lobby in ever more media friendly ways for spending on the latest drug that they hope will alleviate or cure their symptoms.
It is what you should expect when you have a near monopoly health service provider controlled by this particular group of politicians who live by the media. Because the NHS has such colossal power in its buying decisions drug companies have to throw everything in to selling to the single purchaser in the English market. They are very disappointed if it does not work.
Similarly, patient groups have come to realise with this government that only media friendly prominent lobbying is likely to get Ministers attention and possibly lead to a change of policy. One of the newer features of an MP’s life is a stream of invitations to attend functions organised by groups whose sole aim is to change the drug purchases and the medical and clinical protocols of the NHS for treating a particular disease. Most diseases now have their action group. They feel forced to behave like this, competing for the attention and money of Ministers in this heavily centralised top down system Labour has devised. Too much rests on the decisions of just a few people at the top, in the Ministry, and in NICE.
The government has invited people to make the NHS the central concern of modern politics. They have shown them how to lobby and use the media, and they have so centralised the NHS that people conclude the only thing that matters is to get to the Minister. They have ended up fashioning a boomerang that is beginning to hurt the very government that designed it as their own political weapon.
Labour believed that if they spent lots more on the NHS most of the problems would go away. If they centralised decisions they could guarantee good standards across the country and claim the credit for all that was going on. Such a strategy means they must also be to blame for things that are not working well, for the hospital infections, the delays and shortages,and to blame when people cannot get access to the drugs they think they need or the treatment that would make them better.
I have been meeting GPs during the summer break from Westminster. They complain to me that too many top down targets are making it far more difficult to serve their patients well. They dislike features of the very expensive centralised computer technology being introduced into their lives. They too are unhappy about the endless fiats from the centre and from too many judgements being made by too few people.
Labour had better be careful. Its attempt to play politics with the health issue, showing itself as the beneficent provider of more cash from the centre, is becoming a cause of angst with patient groups, with drug companies and with GPs. That is a very powerful alliance of interests to turn against you. Never has so much money been spent by so few people with such negative effects.