Category: Uncategorized

All monopolies conspire against their users. State owned ones also conspire against the taxpayers that own them. As some used to say “We do not own the nationalised industries, they own us” . Any loss or outrage they commit means we have to take the blame and pay the bill.

Monopolies are usually created by law and regulation. Some are said to be natural, but it is difficult to find many of these in large scale provision of goods and services. Of course the owners of the Taj Mahal or the Tower of London have a monopoly of their visitor attraction. The suppliers of water or of electricity or of rail travel need have no such monopoly. In each case it is possible to allow or encourage competition.

State and private monopolies have a tendency to avoid innovation, not wanting to undermine their own way of doing things. They have a tendency to cost plus, allowing their cost base to expand in the knowledge they can pass the costs on to the consumer. They may keep supply tight by not investing in sufficient additional capacity to provide an excuse for high prices and poor service.

State monopolies are particularly good at blaming customers for wanting too much and expecting too good a service. The shortage of roadspace for a growing population in the UK leads to constant demands that we travel less, not to more provision. The shortage of capacity to turn round passport and driving licence applications leads to delays in receipt. Many Councils keep parking dear and scarce to put people off visiting their town centres.

Highly regulated monopolies in the UK are also good at rationing and blaming customers. The water companies, far from wanting to meet expanding demand with more supply, impose limited use bans and try to educate us into using less water. The railways are not good at meeting peak demands with enough trains with enough seats, though the decline in daily commuting has eased this tension somewhat. Big popular events  often remain badly served by public transport. The electricity system often needs imports to keep the lights on as it is run with insufficient domestic capacity. Customers are told to cut their use and to  switch their use to different times and night and day.

In some pieces to follow I will look at what scope there is to increase competition in  regulated monopolies where customers pay for the service and what this might achieve in terms of more capacity, better service and lower prices.

The proper topics of conversation were availability of supplies and prices. Gordon Brown’s attempt to hijack the agenda with a proposed nationalisation of parts of the energy  industry was bizarre. His own purchase of RBS shares during the banking crisis at an elevated price bailed out shareholders and left the taxpayer nursing large losses. It was  not the right answer to a disaster in the banking sector and over the regulation of banks which he made worse. The last thing taxpayers need now is the requirement to find billions of pounds to acquire shares in energy companies, with a view to then running them at  a large loss to keep the prices down.

The answer to scarce and dear energy has to be the supply of more and cheaper energy. That requires plenty of private  sector investment, and sensible regulation where there are monopoly elements. If the only aim of regulation is low prices we will end up with less energy, losses for the taxpayer to pay and an eventual larger price hike from weak supply. Look what happened to Bulb. The state interventions did  not keep the general price of power down but we have losses to pay.

The Lib Dem idea of simply freezing the prices we pay answers nothing. Who then buys in and provides the energy and who covers the losses on doing that? Why indeed would a company volunteer to supply at a large loss?

Please find below part 2 of my interview with the Chairman of the Campaign for an Independent Britain. We discussed topics such as the next government, energy, housing:

The  water industry is an unusual one in the U.K. Instead of welcoming hot dry periods as a good opportunity to sell us more of its great product it lectures us to use less and threatens us with rationing.  It must be because retail water suppliers are largely regulated monopolies. The Quangos that regulate them do not want them investing enough to grow their business and the businesses acquiesce in managed muddle and disappointment for customers. Both Regulator and industry have also performed badly when it comes to requiring the industry to clean up dirty water before returning it to our rivers.

Some greens argue that we should learn to use less water to place less stress on the planet. That is a wrong argument. Water is the most common substance on the surface of our globe. It is the ultimate renewable resource. We were all taught about the water cycle. Water from the vast supplies in our oceans and seas is swept up into clouds by the travelling winds. Some is deposited back down as rain. It finds its way back to the sea. If people interrupt its progress and use it, they do not destroy it but pass it back to the river system via treatment works that should clean it from the dirty industrial process, washing or human urine forms. There is no great strain on the planet from using the water on its way back to sea, subject to regulating the uses we make of it.

Some people argue that the industry cannot expect to cope for every peak demand. If there is a hot summer then demand does rise as many more people want to water plants and fill paddling pools, more farmers want to irrigate crops and more drinks makers need to bottle more water based fluids. This too is a bizarre argument. The peak demand issue for a hot summer is mild compared with some of the peak demand issues other businesses face. The hot cross bun industry does not sell its products for most of the year and has plenty for Easter. It does not tell us in April it cannot handle such a peak and tell us to eat less or to order some for August.

The problem with monopoly and price regulation is two fold. Monopolies do not have to respond so well to customers as competitive businesses. If we had genuine choice of supplier to send us water down the pipes we would get a better service. Regulators do  not necessarily choose to regulate the price at the level it takes to ensure sufficient supply. Short term wishes to keep prices below a market price leaves some regulated industries short of capacity and unable to invest in enough new.

The Water Regulator needs to call in the main players and go through what ti would take to put in extra reservoirs, boreholes and desalination plans to make sure next time we have a hot spell with little rain we have enough water. It would also be a good idea to extend the competition now allowed for business water supply to spread to householders as well.

Last week, I had a discussion with the Chairman of the Campaign for an Independent Britain. We discussed a variety of topics including Brexit, taxes and red tape. Please find part 1 of my interview below:

As the electricity regulator reviews the resilience of the UK grid and generating system it needs to consider how it can encourage more investment in additional capacity. The government and big business tell us we are living through an electrical revolution when more people and businesses will switch from gas heating and petrol and diesel transport to electric versions. Meanwhile the grid operator has had to go back on the idea of closing all the coal power stations in order to keep the lights on when the wind doesn’t blow, showing we can be  close to the margins even on a summer day.  The case seems overwhelming to put in more capacity.

It is true there is considerable further investment underway in wind farms. To solve our problems these need to be linked to battery or hydrogen based storage of output when there is a surplus to handle the shortages when the wind does not blow. It is going to take time to build enough nuclear to give us reliable baseload capacity. Indeed this decade sees the closure of most of our nuclear, making the problems of adequate supply more difficult. We will need sufficient conventional power stations to plug the gaps pending the technological and commercial breakthroughs needed in renewable power delivery. The grid managers need to keep all the capacity we still have and make sure it is available. We also need some more reliable capacity before we can store the wind energy.

The UK is short of oil and gas from domestic sources. In recent years we have come to rely more and more on imports of gas and oil, despite having more reserves available at home. During this next decade when we still need plenty of gas for home heating and industrial processes, and plenty of oil for transport and petro chemical activity there is a good case to extract more of our own oil and gas. The understandable wish of the west to remove Russian oil and gas from supply chains adds more impetus to the need to reduce our use of imports.

Those who are most concerned about the output of CO2 need to accept that if we substitute domestic gas supplied by pipe from a UK field we will greatly reduce the CO2 output compared to importing LNG gas which requires energy to compress, transport and decompress it. The Treasury would be delighted as home produced gas means a big tax bonanza for UK state instead of passing huge sums of money over to foreign governments and companies for the imports. Anyone keen to promote more better paid jobs would also welcome it, as the oil industry does usually pay well and we would have more of these skilled ,jobs in the UK benefitting our citizens and tax collectors.

Ministers have announced that they do wish to see more UK gas produced as a transition fuel here at home. Today I ask will the Regulators and officials press on with a greater sense of urgency? Where are we with the potential of Cambo, Rosebank, Bentley, Finlaggan. Jackdaw, Lancaster fields and the others that could be speeded up? What scope is there to accelerate production from fields that are up and running already? Where have we got to on the possible reopening of the Rough storage facility?

At a time when the EU is facing rationing and a difficult future without Russian gas  the UK could assist by producing and investing in more production in its own oil and gas fields.

It is strange to read and hear unquestioning assertions that the high inflation of the mid 1970s was the result of Chancellor Barber’s  tax cuts. If you study the history you would conclude that the Barber period did indeed see an inflationary price bubble especially for property and financial assets, brought on by a change of money policy.
The Bank and Treasury in 1971 gave up on a complex system of quantitative controls on bank lending, substituting Competition and credit control as a policy. The deregulation would have been a good idea if the Bank had then used its retained powers to fix short term rates in a way which limited overall credit and money creation. Instead they went for a credit and money boom which powered the property and secondary banking bubble. In 1973 with clear overheating they abruptly changed policy just in time for the blow of the oil price OPEC surge to widen the inflation and add to the downturn their money policy lurch generated.

There are some similarities with today. Today the Bank has lurched from far too much money creation and low rates to money destruction and higher rates, just as in the 1970 s the Bank and Treasury lurched from far too much private lending and low rates to too little. Then as now the asset inflation broadened out into a general inflation  pushed hard by an external energy price shock. These external  shocks pushed up the inflation rate but also took demand growth out of the domestic economy leading to recession in the 1970s. Today we will have a recession if we persevere with higher taxes and a severe monetary tightening at the same time as the real income hit from energy.

After the collapse of its famous 2% inflation forecast for this year the Bank has gone over to providing a range of forecasts. These at least accept the uncertainties of the world and the difficulties of accurate spot forecasts. On one of their scenarios inflation tumbles well below target over the  next two years and on their base case after inflation yet again higher for longer than past estimates, it too subsides to target in two years. On all of the scenarios there is a big hit to real incomes and GDP from the fourth quarter of this year.

The Bank makes it more difficult for itself in  forecasting by assuming no fiscal policy changes and assuming no new shocks in either direction. The Bank’s mandate is primarily to keep inflation around the 2% CPI target, but it also is required to take growth and employment into account. The Bank’s rationale for tightening money policy so much that a recession is likely is that they need to stamp hard on the inflation now to stop it running away with them. They are right to want to arrest any wage/price spiral. If they look at the data there is no sign of that  happening, with wages lagging prices by a wide margin leaving many more people worse off. This is likely to be followed by falls in inflation as a result. The inflation in the UK has been delayed and extended by the energy price controls which mean there is more bad news to come this autumn when the price cap is lifted again.

Markets expect the Bank to carry on increasing rates this year all the time there is still plenty of inflation around, but expect them to have to cut again next year as recession sets in. It is a depressing boom/bust policy all over again. The Bank fails to forecast big issues ahead, follows the wrong path, then corrects retrospectively. It should instead be looking ahead more. The  main problem is shifting from inflation to recession at the  very moment the Bank wakes up fully to the inflation.

In May 2021 the Bank forecast 2.3% inflation for Q2 2022  and 2.0% for Q2 2022 with rates at 0.1% then 0.3%

In August 2021 the Bank forecast 3.3% inflation for Q3 2022 and 2.1% for Q3 2023 with rates at 0.2% and then 0.4%