Category: Uncategorized

When the railways were privatised there was a period of good growth in rail travel, and a more positive management enthusiasm for promoting rail travel and identifying growth opportunities. One obvious example was to add a short spur line to Heathrow airport. This  large centre for people on the move had been ignored by the nationalised industry.

The nationalised business usually followed a policy of shrink and sack. They wanted trainload traffic for freight, not individual waggon loads. They allowed or encouraged the closing of sidings and links into industrial premises. They watched as business shifted to industrial parks near motorway junctions in place of the older Trafford Park style based around rail links. They  ceased to actively promote U.K. holiday and events travel in the way the pre war railways  had.

Today there are opportunities for growth. To recapture more of the going to work trade they need flexible fares and tickets to attract and retain the 2 or 3 day a week commuter. To recapture lost freight and get many more Lorries off the road they need to actively promote waggon loads with more direct access into industrial sites and estates.  Single waggon marshalling and freight train assembly should be easier in a digital and containerised age.

They need to be more customer friendly in moving large numbers of people to and from events. A large concert or sporting contest struggles to provide adequate affordable parking and road access, and many people attending want to drink alcohol so they cannot drive. There need to be enough special trains.

The railway could work more closely with holiday resorts and other popular destinations. The railway did respond to the rise of Bicester Village as a shopping destination as an example of what can be done.

The railway can expand its capacity by introducing digital signalling on all routes. This allows central control and individual train visibility of all that is on the track, so more trains an hour can be run safely. As most track is one way only and as trains can only leave a track if points are changed it should be a very safe method of travel. Modern technology should eliminate crashes between trains on the same track,

The net zero policies followed by successive Labour, Coalition , Conservative and now Labour governments have left us dangerously short of electricity. The favourite option has been installing more and more inter connectors  with European countries, leaving us very dependent on imports when the weather lets us down with renewables.This is especially dangerous as Europe is very short of energy and may not have the power to send when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. French old nuclear  plants are  becoming unreliable and even Norways hydro system can struggle for want of rain.

The U.K. needs to install a new fleet of gas power stations. These should draw on more U.K. domestic gas as outlined in the oil and gas industry blog, as well as importing from Norway Qatar and the USA. There needs to be more gas storage to build our resilience. Old  reservoirs can be adapted for this purpose. Gas generated power at present gas prices is the most economic way of covering demand when looking at pre tax costs of capital and running costs.

The U.K. should replace the nuclear capacity it will lose this decade with new nuclear, and if possible add to the 4.8 GW that disappears. It is likely the cheapest and best way to do this will be to agree  to build a number of 300-450 MW generators to a proven design, pre fabricating  as much as possible to speed site build times. Designs should not be varied. Past nuclear sites are obvious locations with a settled community  and local workforce used to nuclear activity.

The U.K. with other leading renewable countries need to come to a determination about how best to store renewable energy when it is plentiful.Is this more  pump storage, or big battery or hydrogen conversion? It is expensive stopping wind turbines when the wind is blowing because there is insufficient demand or a shortage of grid.

All the parties say they want to end the small boat voyages from France. All regret the loss of life and want to root out the business organisers. There are more varied thoughts over those migrants themselves that are illegals wishing to buy their way into the U.K. Some want to offer them safe routes and the right to come, others wish to say they do not qualify.

The public is deeply disappointed that these trips have not been stopped by now. The U.K. and French state have great power and resource. They can see the boats get onto the beaches through aerial surveillance. They can trace the money. They can intercept the buses taking migrants to the beaches. They could damage the  boats before they leave France. They could arrest the boat organisers to stop them leaving . These traffickers are breaking rules over boat safety and passenger numbers, over seaworthiness and launch arrangements, over paying tax on profits, over assisting people to commit border offences and much else. Worst of all they put migrant lives at risk, and can put the rescuers in danger when the small boats get into trouble. Why isn’t more action taken?

Can’t the authorities do more mystery shopping for places on the boats? Intercept deliveries of the boats?  Listen in to the chatter of the organisers? Spot the  large sums of money when they move in or out of the banking system?

Many law abiding voters know they will be caught and penalised if they exceed a speed limit, park in the wrong place or travel on a restricted road. Why they ask can’t the surveillance that polices these more minor offences tackle the small boat organisers who put  people’s lives at risk and make a mockery of tax and anti money laundering rules?

When I was policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher we sought economic growth per capita as we wanted U.K. people to better off. We did not welcome the model of inviting in many people to do low paid jobs to boost GDP at the  expense of GDP per head. We sought to keep net migration to a maximum of  50,000 per year, itself a high figure requiring extra homes and public services. There were some obligations to take workers under EEC rules, which were greatly expanded into full freedom of movement for all EU citizens introduced by the Treaty of Maastricht of 1992  and the subsequent EU legislation under John Major and Tony Blair.

There does need to be clarification from the government on what it thinks an acceptable level of migration is, as most of it is legal migration requiring visa permits from the U.K. government. They need to clarify their view of what minimum income should apply for someone needing a work visa, and what planning has gone into providing sufficient extra  homes, NHS capacity, school places and  utilities provision to ensure new arrivals can have a decent income and living  standard without causing shortages for people already legally settled  here.  Treasury accounting which assumes GDP growth from new arrivals assumes they get a job, ignoring dependents, and overlooks the drop in GDP per head if many take low wage employment. Above all they surprisingly ignore  the large public expenditure and taxpayer cost of providing subsidised accommodation and free public services for many.

So far the only category of overseas migrant we know the government wishes to cut sharply are the foreign multi millionaires who wish to pay tax on non U.K. wealth  and income elsewhere whilst paying full U.K. tax on all they did here. It will mean a net loss of tax revenue and of investment in jobs and companies here, without reducing numbers of people much.

If the government truly wants to grow the economy faster and increase average prosperity it needs to welcome people coming to invest and create jobs whilst cutting back sharply on numbers wanting low paid jobs or state support. The U.K. response to the drivers shortage showed how putting pay up and increasing training could recruit many people from those already settled here. Where business is short of employees there needs to be a mixture of higher pay and measures for higher productivity and training to ease the shortage.

I do not have original ideas or proposed different policies to enforce the law. I rarely write about it for that reason.
Today it cannot be ignored. As part of my series on growth the first priority is clearly to enforce the law.

Rioting and looting destroy commerce and harm the  lives of the many. Who will invest in a business that might be torched, or toil in a shop where looters help themselves?

A lax approach to shoplifting can lead to the outrage of people helping themselves on an industrial scale. It is worse when people are assaulted or made to live in fear.

The so called protests that have seen violence against the police and property and the so called counter protests of gangs who want to fight the others both need stopping, with even handed action by the authorities.

The government also needs to update us on how it is getting on enforcing the law against illegal people trafficking. Controlling our borders is a demand of many people. The government promised better control from more resources. Has it appointed another Commander? Has it got further collaboration from the French authorities? How will its improved Border intelligence and management work given all the resource and effort the last government put into it?

Law enforcement has to treat profiting from illegal migration as a serious crime as well as looting a shop or breaking windows of a hotel.

There are three main kinds of roads.

There is the national network of motorways and trunk roads. These should be vehicles only. There has been some expansion of capacity by adding lanes and improving some junctions. More needs to be done as these are much used and crucial to our economy. Their capacity could be helped if Rail freight could be be boosted by more sidings , single waggon marshalling and other ways to make it a more practical and viable option.

There are the local strategic roads, usually A designated. These should primarily be for vehicles. They should have mainly roundabout not traffic light junctions as these are better for flows. Road schemes which seek to remove capacity by narrowing, putting in exclusive use lanes , more lights and partial barriers should be discouraged. Junctions often need improving by increasing capacity . Lights need automatic sensors to switch to green where vehicles are waiting when they are no vehicles using the green that is available.

There are local roads which will often be mixed use. Here there may need to be further schemes to allow safe use by a variety of users, or to restrict parking where that creates obstacles to use.

The big change that is needed is to understand we need more capacity, and to see that making it easier to get through junctions on large roads  is a way to improve safety and reduce driver error. If the government wants economic  growth it needs to increase capacity of the national routes and the strategic local networks , issuing new guidance on junctions and budgets to get rid of bottlenecks, inadequate junctions and capacity shortages.

If you want an economy to grow faster you need to create transport systems that allow people and goods to get about easily and at sensible cost.

For years under all 3 main parties in Parliament the U.K. has followed an anti car,truck and van policy. Nationalised roads have been kept in short supply. Road management has often been designed to impede vehicles seeking to use them

Despite this people and companies have continuously decided road vehicles are the most flexible and useful means of getting about for all but the shortest distances where walking is best. People value the way their car or van is always available when they want it and will leave when they wish. They like the ability to get to virtually every address in the country allowing door to door travel,

Governments prefer rail. Rail does not allow address to address travel unless you live next to a station and want to make a visit to a business or company next to another station, You are limited in what you can carry onto a train and place in the rack, whilst you can get plenty of things in your car or van. Rail only goes when they want to, and may let you down with delay or cancellation. You need to work out how to get to the departure station and from the arrival station. The fare can be high.

Sending more goods by rail could be an excellent idea but it needs sidings for the delivery point and single waggon marshalling to allow smaller consignments than a trainload. It is possible to use containers, picking them up with tractor units for short end delivery trips.

It is not going to be practical to go shopping by train. Trains dont have stops at schools for the school run. The small business providing service at home for people needs a flexible van to get around and fit enough in during the day. Tomorrow we will look at how to configure our roads for growth,

The U.K. is short of homes. We have often agreed here that much lower numbers of migrants would help reduce the shortage. The danger now is the new government may continue with the old government’s high migration policy and perhaps add to it with new safe routes and an amnesty for illegals. This makes expanding the private rented sector even more important. Public  sector budgets are not going to stretch to building many more Council houses.

The government plans to increase the protections for tenants, extending the past governments plans. Whilst this may be good news for those who have a long term tenancy, it is bad news for those needing to find a house to rent or needing to renegotiate an expiring arrangement.

There is likely to be a further reduction in homes to rent as landlords sell up or find less regulated uses for their property than letting it out to someone for their home. This will increase rents again and leave people in need of a home scurrying round when a tenancy does become available. Government needs to get to a balanced regulatory system ,protecting tenants against bad landlords but leaving landlords with sufficient rights over their property to make it a worthwhile investment.

A better private rented policy needs to be allied to helping the building industry train enough skilled staff and invest in sufficient building materials capacity to expand new homes output.There needs to be an increase in new homes to rent as well as to buy.

On its own logic, model and data the Bank should have kept rates at 5.25%. The CPi they say is about to go up again from a brief encounter with its 2% target. It has fallen thanks to world prices, not thanks to domestic inflation. Energy prices will go up again.

Services inflation and wages came in higher at  5.7% and 5.6% implying more inflation above 2% to come. There was no mention of the consequences of the big inflation busting pay awards for the public sector which is a new inflationary force let loose. The Bank knew all about it as they say they were briefed by the government. There was no analysis of the lack of funding so far identified to pay  for most of the planned multi billion  increase in spending  announced by the new government. Surely this is also a concern?
The MPC  failed to consider the impact of its damaging losses on bond sales, putting this off til their next meeting so they can carry on claiming huge taxpayer bail outs.

If the Bank believed inflation is a monetary phenomenon they could have made a case for easing. It would be best to do that by throttling back the bond sales they call QT. They are having to set up a generous reverse repo facility to deal with possible lack of money in the system brought on by QT. As they do not so believe they should be alarmed by the continued elevated level of pay growth unmatched by productivity and the way in which a big unfunded public sector pay rise could force more in the private sector to match the inflationary increases.

The MPC  was split 5-4. The minority saw the illogicality of the majority and argued more the case I have set out above. The minority too ignored the QT bond sales and the liquidity squeeze in their minuted remarks.

48 years in the Common Agricultural Policy did considerable damage to U.K. farming, and led to a sharp decline in the proportion of temperate food we grow for  ourselves.

The BSE disease was used by the EU to help shrink our beef herds by prolonged bans after the disease had gone.

The U.K. was kept short of milk quota, forcing us to import milk or milk based value added products like yoghurt and cheese.

Grants were given to get the U.K. to grub up orchards to be replaced by French and Spanish imported fruit.

The Dutch flower industry had advantages which took out much U.K. production.

The Spanish vegetable industry took market shares away from U.K. market gardens.

Now we are out of the EU the U.K. could replicate some of the subsidies, favourable pricing, lower energy costs and regulations that have benefitted  continental competitors  to U.K. growers. The farming budget needs to be reorganised away from granting subsidies to landowners not to farm to rewarding and supporting those who will invest in more U.K. food production. Modern vegetable and fruit growing can be done in controlled conditions minimising water and feed inputs, and protecting crops from weather and insect and animal attacks. This takes investment which the agriculture budget could assist with.

Growing more at home should also satisfy the greens, as it will mean less CO 2 generated by all those transport movements to import bulky food items and keep much of it refrigerated on the  journey. It would mean growing less in countries with bad water shortages.