The first full day in the job saw the new Home Secretary preside over large numbers of illegal migrants. According to press briefings the last Home Secretary was removed because she was failing to get a grip on migration. We read that the new one will take a tougher line and stem the numbers. So why no statement of intent? Why no announcement of how she will do this? You need to start as you mean to carry on. Facilitating the arrival of large numbers of people and scrambling around to find them hostels and HMOs as she did yesterday is not going to change things.

Some will say it is unfair to expect a new Home Secretary to hit the ground running. In normal circumstances you would give them a few days to read themselves into the job and to prepare something to tell Parliament. But this was not a normal appointment. The press reports say she was drafted in to replace the outgoing to be decisive and  to make a difference, to change the outcomes. As a senior member of the government involved in all the legal advice the new Home Secretary must already be up to speed on these most crucial of issues.

Some with strange old fashioned notions that being a Minister is a 9 to 5 office job five days a week will say yesterday was a Saturday. I can assure you as a Minister you are on call 7 days a week, you work weekends and if you have such a high profile key job as Home Secretary in a borders crisis you should visibly be in charge from Day 1.

Presumably the PM when he appointed her told her what was going wrong with the Home Office approach and told her what she had to mend. She would otherwise have asked diplomatically why the last Home Secretary was sent off with some  briefing against her . Surely she asked  what was expected of her. You would reckon  the two would  discuss briefly what to do next. You would expect the new Home Secretary to make an early statement to warn off the gangs and to tell the people thinking of coming why that would be a bad idea. Instead those planning their crossings and paying the gangs uninterrupted in France will have breathed a sigh of relief that nothing seems to have changed.

Let us hope she is behind the scenes preparing an early Statement to Parliament on how she will urgently change the law to deter the not so small boat brigades from coming.  Today would be a good day to get it agreed, ready for next week. It would also be a  good idea to tell the media that is happening.

She could start by apologising to the Conservative Opposition for voting down their well thought through amendments to Labour’s Immigration Bill, and bring this  forward as government proposals. She needs to explain why Labour repealed the belated measure legislated by the outgoing Conservative government to say no one coming by an illegal means could claim asylum on arrival. That was a necessary part of a deterrent, allied to somewhere like Rwanda  to send them to as soon as they arrived. That would have stopped the trade once up and running. The new government abolished both key parts of the policy. .

If you are running a big commercial enterprise and it is performing badly the CEO or chairman calls in the directors running underperforming  units and works with them on improvements. If a senior person fails to improve and results remain poor they might be fired and replaced with someone better. If the group’s policy and requirements of the underperforming unit turn out to be unrealistic or unhelpful they are changed. No one being called in to discuss performance would be surprised as there would be gentle escalation of concern about performance before tougher action was taken.

What a good chairman or CEO would not do is to decide to change half the top people around on the same day, giving them immediately different jobs they do not understand. It would not help to swap the International Sales Director with the Group Secretary, or the Commercial Director with the Head of IT. You would not normally send one to run a completely new unit or operation without some training and a hand over period. Promotions and demotions are best tied into the regular performance reviews and the career development work done by the Personnel or Human  Resources Department.

This recent government reshuffle changes too many people and was done in a rush. The PM had to replace his Deputy. This provided an opportunity for a good news limited reshuffle where a few got promoted and one new person could enter the government. Instead there also firings and moves that could look like demotions. Why reward someone the PM clearly thinks has failed at Home Secretary with the Foreign Office? How will her  replacement smash the gangs and prosecute the urban rapists?  Why remove the Business Secretary who has pledged big taxpayer support for steel but has not released his financial business plan for it? Shouldn’t he have been asked to complete the task? Why move the Justice Secretary who has so far failed to solve the prison shortage and who let a lot of criminals out early?

The PM says he wants delivery. He has just lost a Housing Secretary whose signal failure to boost housebuilding went unchallenged, a Home Secretary who watched as illegal boat migrant numbers soared, a Foreign Secretary who needlessly gave away Chagos and sacks of cash, a Business Secretary who presided over a devastating rate of industrial closures and a Work  and Pensions Secretary who failed to pass her welfare Bill and watched as benefit recipients and unemployment soared. What action during the year did the PM take to review their lack of  progress? What action to improve? What has he told their replacements to do differently? Why are the new people the same people that just failed in their old jobs?

Key areas where we need a change of approach are net zero policy and the interpretation of international law. The two key figures in charge of these remain in post.

The government claims to understand the public anger about rising  numbers of illegal migrants in hotels . It promises it will now reduce them, and will end their use by 2029. This is too late for its critics.

It is also emerging that instead they might move more illegals and asylum seekers into HMOs, flats and  houses that would otherwise be available for UK citizens. Contractors are bidding up rents and offering secure contracts to landlords on good terms with state paid rent to house these people. That is helping create greater scarcity and higher rents  for UK home  seekers. This is no improvement on hotels, dispersing the large numbers of young men coming by illegal routes into local communities.

The government make  much of saying they will clear backlogs of cases. If they do this by granting many of the applicants the right to stay that too imposes a big burden on the state to find the successful applicants homes, benefits and other support until they can find a job.

What the government’s many critics want is an end to small boats and illegal arrivals.Finding new ways to let them in, and different ways to house them is not solving the problem and not responding to the public mood.

 

The tension between PM and Chancellor matters and was on display the day she shed a tear at PM’s questions and he declined to comfort or support her. It looks as if it has got worse, with the appointment of a new and constitutionally awkward Chief Secretary to the PM in Downing Street who looks a bit like a substitute Chancellor/Deputy PM out to second guess or trump the true holders of those offices.

In accordance with my policy of not talking here of allegations of personal misconduct I have kept off the details of the living arrangements and tax affairs of the Deputy PM. Now she has confirmed that she paid too little Stamp Duty on her latest purchase and has referred herself for investigation I need to assess the implications of this serious set back for the government.

It means the two most important Cabinet members have lost authority, whilst No 10 has  strengthened its personnel as if to guide them or take over more of their jobs. It makes the government look very unstable. Some in the governing party  now think the Deputy PM should lose that job. Her future rests on a report on her conduct. The Chancellor now has to broker her budget with the Chief Secretary to the PM and the PM ‘s Economic Adviser as well as with the PM himself. It makes error from more compromises and from the unregulated clash of minds more likely.

It is disappointing that the new team did not hit the ground running. Where was the action needed to end the Bank’s destructive sale of bonds? Where is the surrogate package of spending reductions to replace the lost cuts that backbenchers destroyed? Where are the revised plans to curb excessive growth of welfare entitlements with no requirement to work? Where are the detailed plans to recapture some of the huge public sector productivity losses?

The spinners went out yesterday to reassure the markets with two soundbites. The old one was the PM and Chancellor are strongly committed to the Chancellor’s new laxer fiscal rules introduced at the budget. The new one was that the new advisers crowding   into Number 10 mean the PM and the Chancellor are now more united about the budget.

These lines stretched credulity too far. Few could see the establishment of powerful economic advisers  to the PM as anything other than an attempt to get a better set of options and advice than they are getting from the Chancellor who should be the PM’s main economic adviser, backed by Treasury support.  Nor are markets. much impressed that a narrow margin over the fiscal rule maximum borrowing has been swept away by  the loss of the planned welfare and pensioner fuel cuts and by the rise in government borrowing rates.

As Hemingway   remarked, bankruptcy  happens gradually  at first, then suddenly. It can be the same with bond and financial crises. They are not inevitable. The Chancellor could change the mood if she said she was about to announce a package of spending cuts or controls to replace the lost cuts and cover the interest bill. She needs to fight and win a few spending battles which could include reductions in the rate of increase in welfare and deferrals of some net zero expenditures.She should urgently agree no more loss making bond sales by the Bank of England.

Yesterday it was disturbing that rates rose and the pound fell. As UK government bond rates are so much better than other advanced country bonds you  would expect more foreign buying of the bonds and currency if there were no special and specific fears about UK economic policy. The Chancellor should not leave  it to a late autumn budget with no stated date if she wants to get back to affordable debt and to within her fiscal rules.Just parroting that the government is dedicated to its rules is not believed  by markets who increasingly ask how and when will borrowing be controlled? Trying to  do it by tax rises could well make things worse, hitting growth again.

1.   Importing oil and gas to burn increases world CO 2. Importing LNG is particularly stupid, given the amount of fossil fuel consumed to convert the gas to liquid, to keep it cold, to transport it by diesel ship and to convert it back again. The climate zealots are undermining their own purpose.
2. Importing oil and gas means we have to pay high taxes to foreign countries and companies, instead of the UK Treasury collecting large sums from UK production.
3. Importing oil and gas exports the often well paid jobs in the oil and gas industry. We lose the jobs here, they gain the jobs abroad to make up our lost supply.
4. Importing oil and gas makes us more dependent on the goodwill of foreigners. Oil and gas trades are often disrupted by world politics, with blocks to Suez, Panama and other key shipping routes, with diversions of energy under sanctions regimes, and with vulnerability to tariffs.
5. Cancelling our own oil and gas industry writes off all the investment made in the gas network offshore and onshore well before the end of its useful life
6. With our own oil and gas supplies we can keep or expand our petrochemical industry. We are currently seeing its collapse thanks to sky high UK energy prices and need to import feedstock.
7. The oil and gas industry if kept at home stimulates and creates important oil and gas service industries which we lose when we rely on foreign product.
8.  Changing policy would be well received by NATO which is very worried about the security implications of leading NATO members needing to depend on unreliable foreign imports.
9. Seeking a mass transfer from gas heating to electric requires a massive investment in additional power generation and a huge expansion of grid capacity and storage. This is bound to increase costs and prices.
10. Keeping the lights on and everything working on cold windless days and evenings will be much more difficult without gas generators on stand by.

The government claims to be promoting growth yet its actions are all about levelling down. They follow an old socialist agenda of tracking down any and every way the better off half of the country make money, increase incomes, save, invest, own property and buy nice things and set about raising taxes on them all. This is a great way to lower growth, lose talent and create misery.

Its first effect as we saw last autumn with all the speculation about higher taxes is to undermine confidence. People cancel purchases, defer investments, put off transactions.

Then the actual tax rises hit. The big NI rise was a tax on jobs so vacancies plunged and unemployment rose. The family farms and small business taxes led to closures and sales. The gathering attack on wealth drove many rich  people out of the UK, meaning they will no longer pay any tax . Many younger people who want to work hard and get on have left to get a job or set up a business abroad.

This year the result of the last budget is likely to mean lower OBR forecasts requiring more spending cuts or tax rises to hit deficit targets. The government seems focused on tax rises, so we will go round the  same vicious circle. First comes less confidence on tax rise stories, then the further damage from the actual tax increases.

Levelling down cuts jobs, tax revenue, confidence and growth. It increases public spending as more need benefits and are out of work.

This is what Chat GPT thinks I said – it is right

Critique of QE and QT: Excessive Risk, Taxpayer Exposure

• Redwood has consistently warned that the Bank of England’s quantitative easing (QE) programme—particularly during and after the pandemic—has saddled taxpayers with massive potential losses. He cited costs already incurred, like the £24 billion by April 2023, and projected total liabilities of up to £100 billion or more if losses continue Institute of Economic AffairsYorkshire Times.
• He argues that the Bank, rather than selling bonds at a loss (quantitative tightening or QT), should hold them to maturity to avoid realizing those losses. He looks to the European Central Bank, which has adopted that strategy, as a model worth emulating Parallel ParliamentInstitute of Economic AffairsTelegraph.

2. Institutional Independence—or Lack Thereof

• Despite popular narratives, Redwood emphasises that the Bank of England was not fully independent in setting QE policies. He notes the Treasury’s role in underwriting QE bond purchases, including agreements indemnifying losses, thereby exposing public finances to risk Facts4EUParallel Parliament.
• He stresses that major QE decisions were jointly made with the Treasury and advocated greater accountability and transparency in such operations Facts4EUParallel Parliament.

3. Forecasting Failures and Inflation Criticism

• Redwood criticises the Bank’s forecasting models, asserting that they failed to predict the surge in inflation even before the Ukraine crisis. He points to the UK’s double‑digit inflation as evidence of central bank misjudgment Institute of Economic AffairsPortfolio Adviser.
• He contrasts this with countries like Japan, Switzerland, and China, where inflation remained low despite similar global pressures—largely, he argues, because those countries avoided large-scale QE Institute of Economic AffairsGB News.

4. Monetary Governance and Reform

• Redwood has called for the Bank to revise its forecasting models, placing greater emphasis on money and credit growth. He also advocates for a diversity of economic viewpoints among senior staff and MPC members Institute of Economic Affairs.
• He proposes that the pay of senior staff and MPC members should be tied to performance—specifically, their accuracy in forecasting and ability to control inflation within public finance constraints Institute of Economic Affairs.

5. Broader Constitutional and Growth Context

• Redwood urges that the Bank not be allowed to impede fiscal policy or divert vital resources—via large losses—to the detriment of public services and growth initiatives TelegraphGB News.
• He frames monetary policy missteps as hindering national growth, advocating instead for a “budget for growth” that addresses capacity gaps in energy, infrastructure, and production Facts4EUParallel Parliament.

Key Quotes from Sir John Redwood

• On losses and bond holdings:
  “The Bank of England should cease selling bonds and allow maturities to gradually reduce the balance sheet.” Institute of Economic Affairs
• On institutional risk and governance:
  “It is simply wrong to say the Bank followed an independent money policy after 2009… the Treasury/Bank agreed policy added £895 bn of assets… and set taxpayers up for possible large losses.” Facts4EU
• On forecasting failure and inflation:
  The Bank “kept interest rates too high for too long… driving up mortgage rates, and undertaking quantitative tightening (QT) – selling the bonds purchased during QE.” Portfolio AdviserInstitute of Economic Affairs
• On reform and accountability:
  He calls for “link[ing] Bank of England senior staff and Monetary Policy Committee members’ pay to their ability to forecast and control inflation.” Institute of Economic Affairs

In summary:

Sir John Redwood has been a vocal critic of the Bank of England’s post-2008 monetary policy, particularly QE and QT. He believes that excessive bond purchases—with guaranteed indemnity by the Treasury—have exposed taxpayers to undue risk. He criticizes the Bank’s forecasting failures and urges a revised governance structure: better forecasting models, more accountability, and closer alignment with growth-oriented fiscal policy.

.

 

 

Only socialists in the UK could think our national flags are embarrassing symbols we should not fly in public. I am heartened to see the cross of St George appearing much more often. To me it is a symbol of England that resonates with our virtues. Slow to anger, firm in the defence of freedom, generous to those in adversity, critical of the pompous and damning of the stupidity of some officialdom. The English lion lies down in a friendly way. It takes much to arouse but can be fierce if our values of tolerance,freedom and fair play  are abused excessively.

Patriotism is at its best a benign virtue. We can be proud of our own country without running down others. We can enjoy our culture and viewpoint without  being hostile to  different foreign ways. We can fly our flags  proudly as a statement that we want to live here, we value our past and our traditions, and we wish to draw on the best of our inheritance, landscape and  institutions.

As a generous country we will help those in need and at risk. That does not extend to those who break the law or who abuse our hospitality. As a law abiding country we want to trust the authorities, but we expect them to keep us safe and look after our interests first.

I get a lift when I see our flags fly high. Anyone in public authority who is ashamed, angry or wants to take them down misjudges why people put them up. Why cannot they see what we see in the history, achievements and way of life of the English? Why do they think so many people want to come here? Many are fed up with local and national government doing us down and sending us the bill.

 

Many commentators are predicting one, based on rises to  25 year highs in longer term government borrowing rates. When these rates rose in 2022 Rachel Reeves called this “ crashing the economy”. All this year the rates have been higher than the one day spiked peak in 2022.

A better question to ask is how can we avoid a crash? There are 4 things the Chancellor should  do urgently.

1. As the Bank’s bond portfolio is under dual control, requiring government consent and underwritten by government against loss, the Chancellor should instruct the Bank to stop selling bonds in the market. This would reduce selling pressures which are driving up rates.

2. She should identify spending that can be reduced, deferred or cancelled and announce it to Parliament to replace the lost savings from welfare and pensioner fuel cuts, and add a bit more. Deferring some  Net zero expenditures, putting in  new criteria for new welfare cases which reduce those getting UC with no need to seek work, ending the battery car subsidies, discontinuing plans to give money to Mauritius, imposing a recruitment freeze on administrative positions in public service, and cutting Bank of England losses could be in the package

3 Rule out any tax rises in budget, learning from the adverse  impact the tax rises in the last budget had on confidence and growth.

4 Promote growth by lifting the bans on new oil and gas production and on diesel and petrol car production from 2030. Raise likely tax revenues by removing the farm and small business tax.