Category: Uncategorized

It was wrong that so many Council elections were cancelled. It js clear from the elections that were permitted that many people are unhappy with the government and want change.

The Conservatives and Reform combined polled very well, with Reform getting excellent results in the Runcorn by election, several of the  Councils and the Greater Lincs Mayoral race. In a Council like Northumberland where the Conservatives won most seats but Reform were a close second it is important the two parties  come to an agreement to provide good local services and leadership.Reform now has a chance to show what it can achieve where it has strong majorities.

The two parties in Councils need to concentrate on providing good quality core services led by schools and social care. They need to cut overheads, stop the anti driver agendas, stop so called investments in property and energy which have jeopardised some Council’s finances, and get the Council tax down.

As always much of the local election debate was about things Councils do not control. Labour and Lib Dem candidates usually avoided talking about local bad management, waste of money, high taxes and excessive borrowings.

When the Chancellor went to China to promote the  UK and UK exports she associated herself with just £600 m of deals. That would have been a poor result for a junior trade Minister. It is under 0.03% of GDP.

As the Chancellor tells us an improved EU trade deal could boost growth, their main idea to promote UK dairy products with a revised SPS agreement is seeking to boost something that at best could add less than the China deals. It seems she has no idea of significant figures.

When it comes to spending she is good at underestimating the huge costs of the large public sector and the impact  of inflation busting wage settlements without productivity growth. Her willingness to borrow £15 bn more than  planned  in her first year makes a nonsense of her lectures on prudence. It makes  the mean cut in pensioner fuel payments more difficult to defend. The OBR were out by £15 bn within a month of their forecast. So why does the Chancellor trust them and  believe their five year forecast. Last year’s deficit came in £65 bn higher than the OBR forecast of it a year ago!

A growth strategy will not be boosted by the kind of giveaway EU reset she has in mind, nor by giving away the Chagos with a dowry, nor by doubling down self harming net zero policies.

The government is wrong to consider locking us into EU SPS rules. The EU when we were in it designed rules to keep out better value safe food from our previous supply sources in Australia, New Zealand, the USA and Argentina. It used regulations and tariffs to limit imports.

At the same time it rolled out policies to disadvantage UK farms and get us more dependent on EU imports. They refused to give us sufficient milk quota , forcing us to buy value added products like yoghurt from the continental countries who  were granted bigger  quotas. They used disease in UK cattle to have a long and comprehensive ban on UK beef. They gave grants  to get the UK to rip out orchards so we could import more continental fruit.

The current argument is about SPS regulations. The EU insists under its Sanitary and Phytosanitary rules that all meat and dairy export consignments into the EU require a new vet certificate to say the animals were in good health. This is an added cost and slows things down. Previously it was sufficient to run compliant animal husbandry and to notify immediately if a farm had an animal health problem. The UK can of course insist on similar controls to those the EU imposes . If we did so the EU would be more interested in reducing the burden.

Uk exports of meat, cheese and butter to the EU have always been modest. We import three times as much food and drink from the EU as we export  to them. It would be wrong to give away our ability to shape our own food safety rules and import from places other than the EU where the product is better value.

Tony Blair is right to say the transition to net zero will prove too dear and too unpopular  with the public. He failed to point out that the policies to  import gas instead of using our own, to get people to buy battery cars and recharge them from gas generated electricity, and to close down our energy using factories to import instead all mean more world CO 2.

These policies deindustrialise the UK. They make consumers poorer paying all the green levies, carbon taxes and windfall taxes taxes. They divert massive amount of capital to replacing perfectly  good energy assets. They mean a big rise in state debt and interest charges taxpayers have to pay as government spends on carbon capture, increased grid and renewables.

There needs to be drastic and urgent change of policy. Will the PM move Mr Miliband out of his current job and get on with reversing the taxes,  subsidies, high energy prices , bans and import based strategies which are doing such harm?

His supporters are delighted illegal migrants are down 95% across the Mexican border in March compared to last year thanks to his tough actions on entry and returns. They like his ditching net zero policies and going for more cheaper energy. They like the attack on DEI and the decision that the Federal government thinks there are two genders, male and female. They like the attack on wasteful spending and excessive bureaucracy by DOGE.

His critics dislike all of the above. They think the US should be kinder to migrants, and argue they are needed to take lower paid jobs. They believe in the need to get CO 2 down and think the US should do more not less. They are scandalised by the attack on DEI and bureaucracy and are seeking help from the courts.

The President promised peace but so far this has eluded him in Gaza and Ukraine. He seems to have moved on from Gaza in frustration with the failure to release the hostages by Hamas. He tilted to Putin to get him into peace talks but is now cross about lack of progress and is criticising Putin. People are divided over whether he can achieve a peace in either place, with plenty of criticisms from both sides as he seeks to find common ground.

The tariffs policy has alarmed markets. They worry  that high tariffs will in the shorter term raise US inflation, only to slow growth thereafter and leave people worse off. Some think it could come right by the President doing a series of trade deals with major trade partners to get barriers down. Others think the President wants higher tariffs to boost US investment in capacity and to bring in government revenue.

What do you think?

I see no evidence that the EU wants to offer anything by way of a reset. They see the UK asking for one as another opportunity to make the deal worse. Nor do I see the Uk asking for much that would be worth having.

The EU wants to impose more of their laws on us, take more of our money, take more of our fish and send us more migrants.

The UK seems to have asked for easements on rules for EU import of some foods and easier access for our musicians.

The UK should be finding a way to end the sea border in the Irish Sea, and to end putting Northern Ireland under EU laws. There is an easy technical  answer to the EU’s alleged problem. The UK would promise to enforce EU laws on any exports from UK/NI to Ireland but would not need to have any additional checks on trade between GB  and NI than there is betweenLondon and Birmingham,

The UK should be proposing the same kind of relaxations for services trade with the EU as we now enjoy through trade treaties with other parts of the world.

The UK should end our links with the EU carbon trading system and remove the threat of the carbon border tax.The UK should end the rights of supertrawlers to hoover up too much fish from our waters and put in a policy to rebuild thee UK fishing industry.Much of what we need to do can be done by ourselves making our own decisions as a sovereign country.

The last government allowed drift in the arguments about nationalisation. They decided a fully nationalised railway might be less bad than a largely nationalised one. They failed to explain that Labour had nationalised the main assets of our railway , all the track, signals and stations. They failed to point out the so called private sector train companies had to accept timetables, fares and capital expenditure plans  laid down by government officials. They failed to remind people that in the early years of a largely privatised railway before the government took over Railtrack and made most of the decisions about trains  passenger numbers surged and services improved. There had been decades of losses, passenger  decline and poor punctuality at British Rail.

They failed to mention the fact that the   biggest disaster, a new railway from London to the  north,   so delayed and over budget it would never reach the north , was fully nationalised throughout.

As they failed to get the establishment to right the wrongs and pay the compensation promptly to the Post Office staff sent to prison they never mentioned this business had always been nationalised. It had hit a new low in the way a nationalised industry harms employees and mugs  taxpayers.

As Ministers rightly condemned the water industry for sewage dumping in rivers they did not point out that the industry had regional monopolies with a Regulator so keen to keep the bills down they did not  allow much investment in new reservoirs, treatment works and more pipe capacity the businesses needed. They declined  to introduce competition to make  the companies perform better though we have  competition in gas with a single pipe to each house.

The new government is  worse. It seems to want nationalisation.It cannot possibly afford to buy most of the assets it might like to own, and simply taking them would end  most inward investment into the UK if property rights are torn up. Its steel adventure will probably end with the unwelcome closure of two old blast furnaces they will not renovate or replace, a huge bill for taxpayers and lawsuits with the Chinese owners.

I backed a previous Labour government in keeping us out of the Viet Nam war.I could not see how that could have  a happy ending.

I failed to persuade the Conservative opposition to oppose UK involvement in the Iraq war. That too did not end well.

I have supported the last four Prime Ministers in their view that we should not go to war with Russia. This has meant not allowing any UK military personnel to help Ukraine in their country.

The UK did lose lives and commit plenty of money and equipment to the fight in Afghanistan, only to see the US pull  out without even consulting us. Defeat followed quickly, meaning all our sacrifices had been wasted.

Today the PM tells the world Ukraine must fight on to show Putin the use of force is not rewarded. How does that help when in more than 3 years of war Ukraine has not been able to evict Russian forces and he is not suggesting how this can change. Indeed, the UK cannot afford to offer more military  hardware and money and the US wants out from being the major donor.

I am pleased to read that the PM  now sees the UK and France cannot muster a sufficient force to guarantee any ceasefire or peace in Ukraine without US help. The UK is not currently equipped to fight and win a war with Russia without NATO and US leadership. The UK is not on a war footing and would need to turn massively to arms production and military recruitment to be so to assist Ukraine. If Europe cannot keep the US onside to help supply and support Ukraine it needs to avoid making promises it cannot keep, leaving Ukraine with insufficient support.

In the run up to the elections I am not posting messages that tell people to vote for any particular party, nor over the top and inaccurate attacks on parties.

The site encourages sensible discussion of government policy and options for the future to help inform the general public debate.

Various briefings hint at a big sell out to the EU in the forthcoming reset.

There is suggestion we will surrender most of our fish for  years ahead for no good reason.

There is a wish to bind us into more rules and regulations. This is said to be necessary to help trade in items like food. We already import far too much from the EU and all the time we were in the EU we faced a large trade deficit with the EU forcing out our farmers. Bad idea to volunteer for more of that. We lost a lot if market share with beef bans, too small a milk quota and grabts to grub up our orchards.

There is the idea of bringing back freedom of movement for younger people, calling it a Youth Mobility scheme. That would mean more large taxpayer bills to help these young people meet high housing and living costs.

We must try to stop this.