Category: Uncategorized

The most striking feature of this week’s government announcement of new ways to tackle problem families was the figure work. Apparently the 120,000 worst problem families in the country cost taxpayers on average £75,000 a year. That is the cost of benefits, housing, social work, police time and the rest, as a small army of state emoloyees try to provide support and discipline to families in need of practically everything from their neighbours – or the state as they are known.

The government is right to ask where all this money goes. Why do we need so many different staff and agencies to tackle these problems? Couldn’t one person go in and sort out a range of issues, whether they are in the housing or schooling or benefits box? Will the appointment of a single point of contact by each Council work? Will Councils co-operate? Will they choose people with authority and judgement? Will these new guardians defend the public interest and public purse, or will they take the line of least resistance, acting as advocates of more state money for the families they have to handle?

How can the state, on behalf of the taxpayers, ask for responsibility, discipline and effort from the families it is helping? What should we, and our representatives expect? If a costly education is provided for the children, shouldn’t they turn up? (the poorest areas receive far more per pupil than the richer areas) If they turn up, shouldn’t they show some willingness to learn, some understanding of the power of education to lfit them out of benefit dependency and relative poverty?

If benefits and housing are provided to the adults, shouldn’t we expect those adults to make every effort to find and hold down a job? If training is provided, how much willing participation should we expect? If they live in higher unemployment areas, how much understanding should we show of slowness in finding work? How far, if at all, should we ask them to travel to do a job?

These questions have been around for years, but there has been a reluctance to ask them. It has been an easy answer for government to invent some new programme with a new title, recruit more people to tackle problem families, and to say it is all a matter of resources. Now we have got to the point where every problem family receives an average of £75,000 a year we are entitled to ask what happens to all the money. Surely for that amount we could start to bring the number of problem families down?

What do you expect in return for your money being spent like this? What sanctions if any should the state impose, if families ignore the help and remain a trouble to their neighbours and themselves? What should these new officials do to make a real difference?

The French attack upon the UK’s debts, deficits, inflation and growth rate looked like an attempt to deflect attention from France’s plunging rating. There have been two big differences so far between France and the UK. The first is the UK can print and devalue to keep its debt afloat, whilst France is locked into the Euro. The second is UK government debt rests on very low AAA rates of interest, whilst French borrowing rates have risen above the comparable AAA levels.

The French and others who were very willing to criticise the Rating Agencies for failing to mark down dodgy credits in the private sector prior to 2007, are now having a hissy fit about the Agencies daring to downgrade sovereign debt in good time, before their struggles become more obvious. The Ratings Agencies are doing their job by downgrading overborrowed and overborrowing sovereigns. As Greece shows, countries can renege on their debts. The Agencies do not seem to be leading the markets, but usually follow them. The Euro area threats of downgrades came after the markets had pushed up interest rates in many cases, and after many private sector commentators had warned of problems ahead.

I suspect the French anger about the UK is mainly owing to the need to provide some offsetting publicity at a time of downgrade discussions for France herself. It is also likely that a President trailing in the polls reckons bashing Britain could win him an easy good headline or two in the French press. He has long held a wish to blame Angla Saxon capitalism for any French failings, so these latest rants just carry on with that government tradition.

The main French protagonists say they are doing it as tit for tat, as a response to some UK criticisms of the Euro and the French position. I have long argued that Ministers should have just one line on the Euro “We do not provide a running commentary on the Euro”, with background briefing that the UK has no wish to say or do anything that could make the position of the Euro worse. However, I do not accept that Ministers have said things that justify this very personal attack on the UK in retaliation.

All of this will feed the groundswell of anti EU sentiment in the UK. If our closest friend and ally on the continent sets out to rubbish the UK’s economy and credit standing, it is a far from friendly act. Were France to succeed, it would push up UK government borrowing rates, making us all poorer as a result, as the state had to pay more for its credit.

I agree with Mr Clegg’s wish this morning to condemn xenophobia and chauvinism. It’s a rising problem in many continental countries, as the politics of anger emerges from the troubles of the Euro. I am an open minded freedom loving globalist. Our message should be that we like our new century, which is bringing prosperity and opportunity to many of the world’s poor in Asia and Latin America, thanks to their hard work and enterprise. We should seize the advantage this brings us as well, offering new markets and many millions of new consumers. Over the next ten years Asia and Latin America will rise as a growing proportion of the world’s wealth and trade, and the EU will shrink. The UK’s outlook and foreign policy should reflect that reality.

Mr Clegg says he wants the Euro area members to be able to use the EU institutions to enforce their proposed fiscal pact. He should be careful lest he gets what he wishes for. This pact may well intensify the Euro countries economic struggles and the politics of discontent. The UK needs to be careful to avoid ourselves being more entangled with a failing currency project, which will have a great cost in subsidies, transfer payments, losses on loans, unemployment and economic misery in all too many countries.

           Last night I was the guest speaker at the Bow Group’s Christmas drinks. I told them a short European fairy story about countries that wanted to share a currency with each other. I will write it out  nearer Christmas for this blog. It has either a happy or an unhappy ending – you can take your pick. You might like to think up your own ending for your contributions.

           It is intriguing to hear how popular the draft new treaty for the 17  is proving with admirers of more EU government. They are often the kind of people who think more government spending and borrowing are a good idea. This pact recommends the opposite. It proposes big cuts in spending and big rises in taxes to get deficits down to very low levels by recent standards. If you do this whilst maintaining the rigid single currency, it will be deflationary. They probably like the tax route more than the spending cut route, which will squeeze private sector demand and encourage more businesses to go elsewhere to carry out their activities.

            The aim of the pact is to give legal force to EU control of budgets and deficits. They rightly argue that if you share a currency with your neighbours you do effectively share a bank account with them. The European  commercial banks all bank at the ECB. That means your overdraft is a matter of common interest. If one borrows too much, it reflects on the currency and the credit rating of the rest.

              Germany has been fighting to preserve her taxpayers from having to finance the overdrafts of the weaker states. The markets are making that harder and harder. The investors who can pay for these deficits are saying they want Germany and the other strong countries to underwrite the borrowings of the weak, if they are going to lend more to them.

                  Germany cannot accept this huge liability. Instead her Chancellor says that the EU must stop the weaker countries running up such large bills and borrowing so much. There has to be central control of the overdraft, to avoid Germany being drawn into bailing out the weaker areas.

                     This is all sound logical northern commonsense. It is not necessarily well thought through democratic politics. If they are going to press ahead with the new fiscal controls for the 17, Ireland may need a referendum on these new powers. After all they are fundamental. How can you say you are still a sovereign nation, if your spending, taxing and borrowing plans have to be agreed with the EU? How can you claim you are independent if  you diverge from the agreed EU plans, and face a fine or other punsihment for your trouble? What powers do your Parliament and the electorate have left, if these crucial issues are settled by technocrats in Brussels?

                     So far the EU has got away with putting technocrat governments into Greece and Italy. As EU plans will require higher taxes and lower spending, there will be a need for political salesmanship of the highest order to explain to voters why these measures are needed, and how they are going to work within the framework of the rigid Euro. If the EU has taken away too much national democratic accountability, it will make this important task that much more difficult. Elected governments will be impotent to change the policies, and will spend their time blaming the EU. The EU will stand remote, unable to engage directly with the electors it is having a big impact on.

                   The EU would be wise to grasp that the Euro crisis is not now just a currency or bond market crisis. It is not just a matter of high stakes economics. It goes to the heart of what a functioning western democracy does. The Euro scheme will come to test and stretch the limits of accountability, and sorely test the patience of voters.

             Some of you have complained about the idea of progressive taxation, some about the use of the word to describe a system which takes more from the rich than from the poor. I used the word because it is the term commonly used to describe tax systems which take more from those with more income and wealth. The alternative is poll taxeor fixed per hominem taxes. Some argue consumption taxes are “regressive”, hitting those on low incomes more. Yet if you look at VAT in the UK, because items like food are exempted, the rich pay proportionately more VAT as well as Income Tax, as all luxuries attract the full rate tax.

             Some of you suggest a flat tax. This is still a tax which taxes the rich considerably more than the poor. If person A is on £20,000 a year, and the flat tax is 20% with the first £10,000 of income tax free, they pay just £2000 of tax, or 10%.  Someone on £100,000 of income pays £18,000, or nine times the amount of the person on the lower income, at 18%.  When Mr Osborne said he liked flat taxes, it still left him supporting the general notion that that the rich should pay a lot more than those on low incomes.

             The June 2010 Red Book set out illustrations of how progressive the current UK system is. A family with one child on an income of £10,000 a year receives  in 2011-12 £6150 from the state  in tax credits after allowing for income tax and National Insurance. Someone on £20,000 a year pays a net  £1800,  on £50,000 a year pays  £14,405, and on £100,000 a year £35,405. The person on £100,000 a year pays almost twenty times what someone on £20,000 a year pays, if they have one  child.  

             Recent budgets have increased the tax on the higher earners, and increased the net payments from the state to lower earners. The top decile of earners have been asked to pay £1600 a year more on average as part of the budget measures to curb the deficit.

            In the March 2011 Red Book the Treasury gave their latest numbers on overall contributions to the state or drawings from  the state. These were based on 2008-9 figures, so the latest would give more to the low income groups and take more from the high income groups. They showed that the top 10% of income earners contributed  around a net £30,000 a year on average, the next 10% around £18,000 a year and the third  from top decile around  £14,000. The bottom three deciles of income recipients  all received money from the state, with the second lowest income group getting most at around  £3000 a year. These figures show benefits received minus all direct and indirect taxes.

             I would be interested to hear views on whether this is fair?  How progressive would you like the system to be?  How progressive can it afford to be, without discouraging people from work or from risk taking?

There has been much sound and fury but little progress in Euroland in the last few days. Far from them saving the Euro, they agreed to differ on some things, and agreed to delay on others. We were told the Uk was isolated, yet most of the nine non Euro members have reservations and none have finally signed up to the package.

At the end of the long meeting of Heads of government in the EU in Brussels last week, the Heads of State or government of Euroland issued a statement.  They agreed a “new fiscal compact and strengthened economic policy coordination”, and “the development of our stabilisation tools to face short term challenges.”

The Statement was not also made by the nine non Euro members of the EU. We were told verbally they were in support but they did not put their names to it.   At the end of the Statement it says  these other countries “indicated the possibility to take part in this process after consulting their Parliaments where appropriate”. That is very weak language, and implies the nine did not sign up to the whole agenda of the 17, and decided  to play it long to gauge Parliamentary and public reaction at home.  It is not quite the UK isolated story we read about. It appears that several countries outside the Euro have reservations about agreeing to major controls on their budgets by the rest of the EU.

The aim of the agreement for the 17 is to create a stronger central economic government for the whole area.  They wish to build on the Stability and Growth Pact, the European Semester (budget approval and control), the new macro-economic imbalances procedure and the Euro Plus pact.  They want these  rules to be more legally binding on the 17 than the old rules proved to be.

At the heart of the new elements in the proposal is the fiscal rule. Each state is to run a balanced budget. They are not allowed to run a structural deficit of more than 0.5%. Were this rule to be applied to the UK today, it would mean additional spending cuts and tax rises to the tune of £60 billion a year to eliminate most of the structural deficit. There would also need to be additional cuts or tax rises for countries with an overall debt higher than 60% of GDP.  Any country failing to produce a budget which conformed with these rules would be required to produce an alternative, and could face sanctions.  Again, if this applied to the UK it would mean additional cuts or tax rises to start to reduce the debt.

The Statement had less to say on stabilisation.  They say they will rapidly deploy the leveraging of the European Financial Stability Facility. They do not explain how they will borrow the money for it.  They wish to speed up the use of the new ESM to July 2012, still a long seven months away. They say they will pay more financial resources into their funds, without specifying how much by whom and when.

So where do we go from here?  The Euroland area countries have decided to adopt these new proposals in March or at an earlier date. They still want them to be incorporated into Treaties of the whole EU, but clearly this is not possible all the time the UK and other members refuse or  want to discuss and delay. The markets will judge the package by how much money it puts on the table to deal with the large balance of payments imbalances, and the state borrowing demands in the weaker countries. Little progress was made on this. When it come to completing a fiscal union, there was modest progress by the 17, but much more work to be done on what legal framework can be used, how these rules can be enforced, and how you get from the high debts and deficits today to where they say they want to be.

This article was published in collaboration with PublicServiceEurope.com.

               The bad tempered EU meeting last week did little to save the Euro. We still do not know how much money they will have to rescue troubled countries, or to intevene in wobbly bond  markets.

               Meanwhile, the non Euro members have seen the text watered down about their possible involvement in the new budgetary controls envisaged in a new Treaty. There was clearly less agreement amongst the 26 than the spinners said. The socialist candidate for French President wants the whole thing re negotiated. There is going to be plenty of time to do so. There will be months of argument ahead on how much new power the EU should have over budgets that used to be set by democratically elected governments.

                     I cannot believe the Times story today will come true that the UK is seriously thinking of concessions to try to stitch this all back together. The public has been misled by suggestions  this “agreement”  can save the Euro, and into thinking all the other 26 now agree. It turns out there is a lot of arguing to do before they have a new legal agreement for the 17 plus, with the 9 not so keen. The UK is well out of it.

                    They are embarked on a long process to build a new hospital for the Euro, when what they need is a better lfie support system for the Euro’s ailments in the bond markets today.

              We spend much of our time on this site discussing policies that could promote more growth, more jobs and greater prosperity.  Most agree that a growing economy can offer more opportunities, and can lift propsects and living standards for many.

               There is a considerable effort put into the alternative debate, the discussion of how you should distribute all the income and wealth we do have, whatever the growth rate.  The politics of fair shares is especially popular at times of low growth or no growth. All elected MPs in the UK accept that there should be  a progressive tax system, which takes more tax from the rich and less tax from the poor. All accept there should be a benefit system to give more state money to those who are ill, disabled, elderly, or unable to find a job.

             I wish to explore this issue a bit more this week. I will be commenting on the degree of progression in our tax system, and the state of our benefit system. We need to look at Mr Duncan Smith’s proposed welfare reforms to make work more worthwhile. We need to ask if it was right to raise out of work benefits by inflation, when wages are rising by less.

                 I would be interested today in  hearing from you about how progressive a system you think we should have in place. How much more tax should someone on £100,000 a year pay compared with someone on £30,000? Should benefits only be paid to people on lower incomes? If so what should the cut off levels be? Or should some benefits go to all taxpayers as of right?  Is mean testing the fairest way of limiting taxpayer bills, or should the prudent on moderate incomes also be able to receive money from the state? Do means tested benefits send perverse incentives? Does it make any sense to pay universal benefits, so millionaires end up with payments? Should bankers pay more tax on their bonuses than footballers pay on their incomes?

           Today I will give my full support to David Cameron for using the UK veto. His requests were modest in return for accepting a new Treaty for the 27. Indeed I thought his offer was too generous, and I would have been very unhappy if France had accepted and we were lumbered with a new Treaty.The French did not want to do a deal. He had no alternative but to say “No” to their proposals.

                   62% of the public agree, and only 19% disagree. Most of you have written  in support. A few are trying to make out he did not veto the Franco-German proposals. Everyone else knows he did, and the French clearly behaved in a way which shows he did. Please try to keep your comments sensible.  UKIP could occasionally say “Well done” instead of carping at everything. They would have had something to complain about if a deal had been done on bad terms.

                It is said to be  axiomatic that the UK needs to be in the EU in order to be in the single market.  It is implied we would lose all 3 million jobs said to be dependent on exports if we fell out with the EU. We are told that business would never forgive us if we lost influence over the rules and regulations affecting business and trade.

             As someone who has in the past led industrial businesses exporting from the UK, these comments seem very unrealistic. When you export to a foreign country you expect to have to comply with their rules and with the customer requirements.  The UK has no special influence over the rules and laws in Asia, Latin America, North America or Africa, yet we export substantial amounts to those places. The UK exports far more goods and services outside the EU than within it, and even in the case of physical goods the true total is around 60% of our exports go to non EU territories. It shows that having a say over the rules is not crucial to winning an order. Nor would France and Germany want to lose the very profitable trade they enjoy with us if the UK demanded different arrangements with the EU.

             The danger for us as the  EU tries to become a unitary highly regulated state is that the EU imposes rules and regulations on us which as a member we will have to follow at all times. This means applying their expensive   demands even when  making for export to non EU countries, or for the home market. Our competitors outside the EU do not face similar impositions. Whilst business people put up with regulatory demands in important customer countries where all competing there have to comply, they do not like us facing higher costs and controls when exporting to parts of the world where no such similar rules are enforced.

           The Uk needs a new relationship with the emerging Euroland country on the continent. We would like arrangements to facilitate trade, and allow friendly collaboration where it makes mutual sense. The Lib Dems seem unhappy about the use of the veto, and will doubtless try to prevent  a move towards the renegotiation we now need, or to a referendum so the UK electors can express their view.  They should look at the polling. The Uk electorate is keen to have a looser and more worthwhile relationship with the continent. The Commons may still have a federalist majority, but this is wholly unrepresentative of the public view on the question of the EU. I doubt the Lib Dems want an election anytime soon.

           I will turn to other topics tomorrow, but the EU has been the dominant news issue for the whole week-end.

          The veto of a new EU Treaty was necessary ground clearing.

          It has confirmed that the UK is different from the continent. We are not now in a two speed Europe . The UK has no intention of joining a later train to European integration. Changing the ever popular EU analogy, the UK is on the by-pass, to avoid the likely  Euro crash on the main EU street.

          Today we are still in many ways  in the same position as we were in last week. We are out of the Euro. As a result we have never been at the “top table” discussing high finance and Euro matters, because it does not apply to us. This is not some new exclusion crisis. We have not been thrown out of the room by Mr Cameron’s actions. We were out of the room thanks to Mr Blair and Mr Brown sensibly keeping us out.

           We now have confirmed what many of us feared. Our EU partners are out to tax, regulate and damage our financial services industry, just as they have done to our fishing industry, our alternative remedies businesses and many others.

           We have sidestepped much of the bail out cash and action needed for the Euro, which is good news. The current government has been better on this than its predecessor, who wanted us to pay our full “share”.

           In at least one important respect we are in better position today than last week. The EU now knows that this Prime Minister can say “No”. The EU has got used to dealing with weak previous governments under Blair and Brown, who always were willing in the end to rub out a red line or allow a UK national interest to be damaged in the interests of a deal. They accepted three new treaties which transferred major powers from the UK to the EU.  Even John Major, who achieved the crucial opt outs from the social chapter and the Euro itself, was not willing in the end to veto a whole Treaty. The EU now knows that this PM might veto, and could veto again. That changes the game a bit.

          So far so good. Now the UK needs to define its national interest and tackle the immediate problems where the EU agenda does not suit us. The Tobin tax is presumably history, as the veto can apply to that as well. I doubt Germany and France will rush one in for Frankfurt and Paris, though London would be delighted if they did. If they believe in it, why not do it?

           The EU financial regulations are a growing reality. The UK will need to push harder for working versions that allow good successful business to remain somewhere within the EU. Many other business and environmental regulations harm EU competitiveness, costing us jobs.

          The Uk should present a constructive plan for jobs and growth which includes repeals and amendments of EU regulations. In an ideal world the rest of the EU would see they need to make changes with us, as all of the EU has a jobs problem. If they will not, the UK needs to start negotiations on what it needs in order to have a sustained growth and recovery programme at home.