People have suffered  in recent years thanks to the lockdowns, the Bank of England created great inflation and some tax rises. The public sector has witnessed a surge in public spending and a big increase in staffing levels. The problems  in the public sector are not austerity but a big drop in productivity and massive misplaced spending.

I used to take to Chancellors and Chief Secretaries short lists of large losses by the public sector. The state has clearly not been short of money because the Bank of England has pocketed £75 bn so far to pay its losses in the last couple of years. We have seen a £20 bn loss of productivity in public services since 2019 as they were given plenty of money to add personnel without adding output. The true figure is higher, and we now have a five year loss of any productivity gains during a period of big spending on smarter digital technology.

The public sector had billions to sign people off as permanently unable to work when more with support and training could get a job. Government tipped billions into a southern railway called HS 2, as its budget overrun more than threefold and the decision was taken that it would never get to the North which was the original big idea. The state afforded the luxury of a Post Office expensive management which ran up losses of £799 m with no one in power objecting. The new government  has not queried or changed any of this.

The new government is worse. It thinks it fine to give out big pay awards with no clauses on boosting service quality and output for the extra  money. We need better pay with smarter working. Whilst they say there is a shortage of cash for pensioners winter fuel there is no shortage of cash for anti driver road schemes, for welcoming more migrants who came illegally, for importing more of our energy as we close down our own oil and gas prematurely.

The public sector is not short of administrative staff and not short of money, It is not short of expensive managers. It is short of effective managers who spend wisely. It is also now short of Ministers who care about value for money and know how to get back lost productivity.

The government says it brings change. It wants national renewal without describing what this looks like or how it happens.

They promised to stop the small boats by appointing a new Border Commander. Conservatives had already done that. The Labour one will be the boss of the Conservative one, but as yet there is no legislation to give them any new powers.Meanwhile numbers arriving have gone up

They said they will set up Great British Energy and a National Wealth Fund to boost investment in renewable power. The Conservatives had set up U.K. Infrastructure Ltd and the British Business bank to do that. Ironically as they have a corporate structure and powers they have to implement the same Labour policy until the government manages to set up the renamed bodies.

They think regulating landlords more will help the housing problems. They have decided to take over the bad Conservative bill and make it worse. Their Bill will cut the supply of homes by more.

They say they are ending austerity. Instead they do the opposite, cutting pensioner benefits and threatening many with tax rises. They claim Conservatives starved public service of money when Conservatives put through huge money and real increases in NHS spending. The issue is how do you boost productivity and quality and manage the money better.

They say they inherited £22 bn of unfunded spending but refuse to itemise the bill or provide any evidence. They have increased public sector wages by £10 bn which is unfunded.

They carry on with creeping full rail nationalisation with no plan to boost fare revenue and cut the huge losses. They grant a big pay award to well paid drivers without negotiating any productivity gain.

They sound like an Opposition with a majority. They criticise what government is doing and blame past Ministers. They criticise the economy and then seem surprised when confidence falls. They criticise the public for our behaviours.

When will they show how they will stop illegal migration, slash NHS waiting lists and get the economy  back to being the fastest growing of the G 7 as it was in the first half of 2024 after a slow patch.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why didn’t the PM and Chancellor see that telling us Things will get worse was bound to put people off spending and investing? Why didn’t they think forward to their October 14 th Investment summit when they want to tell the world investing in the U.K. is a great idea?

Why did they think making up a large number for a deficit which they could not back up with credible numbers was going to help? In their rush to trash everything about the finances and government to blame the Conservatives why didn’t they see that would alarm everyone with prospects of more taxes and spending cuts to come?  When will they take responsibility for what is happening, as they can change anything they want to as quickly as they wish?

The Chancellor’s speech failed because it was still looking both ways. It both said there are plenty of opportunities ahead whilst continuing to argue the government will need benefit cuts and tax rises to battle the alleged budget black hole.

If she really wants faster growth she needs to cut taxes and boost benefits to those in need. She needs to get more people into work and off benefits. She needs to tackle the disgraceful waste and bad spending in the public sector. She could start by slashing losses at the Bank of England, the nationalised Post Office and the nationalised railway and HS 2.

 

It is her choice to lose billions on bonds. Her choice to continue with public sector management of rail that needed. £ 33 bn of taxpayer cash last year. Her choice to allow the public sector to charge taxpayers £20 bn more for inefficiencies on top of the inflation if wages and costs.

Consumer confidence has fallen. Investors are putting off new projects. Landlords are selling up. Shareholders are taking gains while they can. That’s what two months of things can only get worse from the government does. That’s what leaving open so many possible tax rises does as people fear they will be taxed into financial difficulty.

Newspapers and media fuel the downbeat mood with item after item asking who might the government come after? There is a mighty long list as there so many groups Labour seems to dislike. Will they come for landlords, savers, people wanting a decent pension, the self employed, the drivers, the rich, the high earners, all the successful, the strivers, people with good homes, energy companies, banks, small businesses, large companies?

If you want growth and more investment that list is the list of people and companies that will do most to deliver it. It is a bad idea to let them all fear the budget. In three months many of the super rich will have gone to homes elsewhere and will have signed the papers to pay their taxes to other governments. Many of the well off will be well advanced with plans to move away or with better legal ways of placing their savings at home to reduce the coming tax bill. Many strivers will strive less or take early retirement, deterred by the likely higher tax and growing hostility to running a business or renting out property.

The government message seems to be “I warn you, do not work for yourself, do not save too much for your retirement,do not  build a successful company or invest successfully. The government will be out to tax you.”

 

Once you are in government with a big majority and a mandate for change you are responsible. The electorate knew what they didn’t like about the former Conservative government and sent it packing. They did so by half the 2019 Conservative vote abstaining or voting Reform. Labour now has to prove it can govern better. It has to earn the huge majority first past the post delivers when one of the two main parties sees its support collapse.

So far we have an Opposition with a majority. How is the economy we ask? Broken they say. Will you make it better? No, it will get worse.

How is the NHS we ask? Broken they say. Can you fix it? It is going to take years they reply. The plans of how to do it are still secret.

How will you get growth we ask? By delivering huge amounts of investment in wind and solar power they say. How will you do that and afford that? The Secretary of  State sends an urgent letter to National Grid demanding a plan to get to net zero and asking how much it will cost. Listening to Labour in the election they had worked all that out in 14 years in Opposition.

How will you stop illegal migration we ask. By appointing a new Border Commander and working with the French authorities they reply. We do not need an offshore processing centre or destination for illegals they assert. The last government had tried both those options. Why have numbers been going up over the first three months of the so called new policy?

How will you deliver the promised £300 off home energy bills we ask? Domestic energy is about to go up 10%. Firms putting in new renewables or running back up gas power stations will need to make profits from higher prices. The government seems to be dropping the £300 pledge.

How will you clean up politics as promised we ask. We will bring in a rule against donors buying us all expensive new wardrobes of clothes after they have given us an initial makeover they reply.  We will say Unions giving us loads of money  has no bearing on our employment law changes, they chirrup.

It’s time Labour behaved like a government. You defend what the government is  doing or you set out a detailed working plan of how to fix problems. You are proud of what the country is doing and highlight success, not look for everything bad to run down. If something needs improving then fix it.

 

In the last Parliament I had a policy of not accepting gifts or paid for hospitality at sporting events or expensive concerts. I did not ask for or receive payments for articles and media appearances about U.K. politics. I paid for my own clothes and entertainment and for my own election leaflets in 2019.

An MP is on over £91,000 a year and does qualify for expenses when living away from home to do a job which requires you to work both in Parliament and in the constituency. I find it difficult to know why an MP would think it a good idea to accept the gift of expensive clothes when it is bound to lead to a huge debate about the suitability of them and the motives of the donor. It is also debatable whether accepting invitations to expensive entertainments is wise.

Clearly if you are Prime Minister or a Cabinet member then some great events require your presence as office holder. A PM should be seen at a major sporting final with a  U.K. competitor. A culture Secretary needs to attend a wide range of events to take an interest in the sector.A Foreign Secretary needs to do plenty of international travel and attend grand events.  An MP should attend Remembrance Day and other civic occasions in his or her official capacity if invited.

We are not debating official and accepted roles and support,  but discussing how some MPs pursue  personal pleasures in a privileged way, getting a freebie because of their office but not undertaking an official duty at it.

Different and tighter rules apply to Ministers than to MPs.Ministers make decisions. Many people want to influence them, either in a specific case like a grant of a licence or planning permission they need, or in a general tax or regulatory change they would benefit from. I remember as a Cabinet. minister being invited to join rich people on their expensive boats in the Mediterranean with flights paid to join them. I used to reply that I was busy as a Cabinet Minister so could not join them but would be pleased to be invited when I  was no longer in the cabinet. Although they assured me they were not just inviting me because of my position I got no updated invites once I left the government.

A Minister of course compromises themselves if they accept expensive leisure activities with rich people. A Minister also invites suspicion if they meet and wine and dine with leading billionaires without coming clean  if the billionaire influenced them to support their drive for net zero or vaccination or more EU or whatever global cause they are promoting.

Rich people tend to press Ministers to do what the governing elites of the world and the international treaties require. The elites usually get what they want without financing the leading politicians, because the whole net zero ,world health and wars approach is baked in anyway by international law and international get togethers . As a Minister you need to be strong and self confident to turn down one of internationally agreed nonsenses that public bodies unite behind.

The latest August figures for the sales of battery cars in Europe show a big drop of 44%. The market share of battery cars has shrunk to just 14% with a fifth of those who bought one saying they may well switch back to petrol or diesel. The EU, like the U.K. was assuming battery cars would now be approaching a quarter of the market , with complete phase out of new petrol and diesel 2030 to 2035.

As some of us have been warning for years too many of us think battery cars are too dear, their range too limited, their recharging too difficult and their future likely to include new taxes to replace lost fuel duty. The second hand values are often poor causing depreciation problems for those financing peoples purchases. Hire companies report lack of demand with Hertz cutting back on its use of EVs.

The EU and the U.K. need to think again about their manic policy of ending their successful petrol and diesel car industries before there is a dominant market for battery cars and before the U.K./ European industry  can make affordable ones to compete with the much cheaper Chinese products.The EU and US have ironically decided to impose heavy tariffs to try to stop people buying affordable Chinese vehicles, whilst the U.K. with its import everything government  mentality welcomes cheap Chinese cars in to knock out our home manufacturers.

These latest figures show an urgent need to change policy and stop the attempted demolition of the existing vehicle industry.

The Treasury have drawn attention to the £20 bn black hole in national finances thanks to the collapse of public sector productivity this decade. You would have thought every new MP would want to show how they can help do more with less to start the fight back for higher productivity and better value for money. Not so in Wokingham.

The new Lib Dem MP has advertised under a Lib Dem logo five well paid posts to do his job for him. I assume these are all taxpayer paid Parliamentary staff, yet they go out under the Lib Dem logo. One of the posts is for a “Campaigns Organiser and Communications Officer “ to “ work for Wokingham Liberal Democrats organising campaigns and volunteers for the MP and local elections and for the MP’s Parliamentary office on communications on constituency non party  political matters.” Surely such a post should be a Lib Dem volunteer or party funded staffer if the MP can’t be bothered to do it himself?

He wants a speechwriter and drafter of Parliamentary amendments, questions and interventions. He needs a Chief of Staff to sign off constituents letters he cannot be bothered with, and to run the enlarged office. He also wants a Senior Caseworker and a Caseworker, more normal assistance.He  is offering a maximum combined salary of £214,401 with a salary of £36,744  up to £ 52 ,793 for each job depending on the post gradings.There will be other staff costs on top of the salaries. It sounds as if this will all be paid by the taxpayers.

As the MP he replaces, in the last published year 2022-23 my spend on office staff was £101 ,873. I employed two excellent people.
I did all my own research, wrote all my own speeches and my daily blog to communicate, drafted any bill amendments and questions, kept myself up to date with Parliament’s agenda and with my constituents. I did any local campaigning  myself alongside Councillors and volunteers. My two staff did a great job replying to constituents following discussion with me about the incoming  queries . They ran the Parliamentary diary and worked with local institutions and people over meeting arrangements and events. They followed up and resolved difficult cases with local and national government officials. I dealt with the Ministers and Councillors where necessary to try to get a good outcome.

I could not have found full time work for 5 staff and have no idea what I would have done with my time if someone was doing my research, identifying and running campaigns, communicating with press and public as well as doing all the casework and signing my letters for me. Surely we should expect more from an MP on a good salary. The productivity of the Wokingham MP office has just halved  at a time when everyone in the public sector should be striving to improve it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

David Lammy made his first Foreign Secretary speech at Kew yesterday telling us the overriding problem of our times is climate change. This is “the most profound and universal source of global disorder”. Recognising many of us might think the wars in Ukraine or Gaza, or the terrorist attacks against shipping might be important , he went on “The threat may not feel as urgent as a terrorist or imperialist autocrat. But it is more fundamental”.  Pandemics are apparently more likely if it gets warmer. All extreme weather of whatever kind is down to CO2.

There was no evidence to back any of this up. There was no learned statement of where he thinks the world is in getting to the point where CO 2 starts to reduce. There was praise for China’s renewables with no mention that they account for more than 3o times the amount of CO2 put out by the UK or that we assist them to do this by buying so many imports from them. There was  no analysis of why there had been plenty of climate change in the world before mankind arrived, and more again before mankind invented petrol cars and gas boilers.

He did tell us the IEA thinks the world will get to peak fossil fuel usage by the end of this decade. No great sense of urgency there then for most countries but no complaint from Mr Lammy about the big CO 2 producers who are increasing their output of what he sees as a devilish gas.

China, India and Russia are leading the way to more CO 2 this decade. Some think fossil fuel use will still rise after 2030 as emerging market countries continue to develop , drawing on more coal, gas and oil.

He had grand words for the need for the advanced world to do much more to help the emerging world go direct to renewables and electricity, missing out oil and gas based growth. Yet he also reminded us how many in low income countries still have no access to any electricity, and pointed out how much more grid will be needed before the renewables can be connected.

He recalled the promise oft repeated that the advanced countries would make at least $100 bn a year available to emerging economies for green matters. He was unable to tell us when and how that would happen.  Turning to the UK all he could pledge was a £900 m guarantee for the Asia Development Bank. He indicated support for the idea of increasing the capital of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development but did not mention any  Treasury approval to ship them some cash.

So David Lammy, who are you kidding? It is very unlikely the UK herself will be producing all carbon free electricity by 2030. It is a racing certainty the world’s use of fossil fuels and carbon output will continue to climb while he is foreign Secretary. His speech was empty of detail and free of any further UK financial commitment. I agree with him in not offering more cash.I would be happier if he made world peace and prosperity his mission rather than net zero, and took seriously the issues of Ukraine, Gaza and the growing restrictions on trade from tariffs, bans and windfall taxes.How much longer can senior members of the government deny the reality that they are not going to hit U.K. targets for net zero and that most of the rest of the world has no intention of closing down all its fossil fuel based activities. There is still no U.K. government estimate of the costs of all this.

If the Chancellor wanted to pay pensioners their winter fuel allowance she could do so. If she wanted to avoid the threatened tax attacks on enterprise, investment, home ownership and pension savings she could do so. The crocodile tears from the government that they do not want to do these things but have to owing to the budget situation are false.

If the Chancellor is bright and understands the OBR and Bank as she should she can see as I can see how you could make different choices, avoiding the unpleasant spending cuts and damaging tax rises. Finding £20 bn would easily fix it. So here are some of the ways she seems to be turning down.

1. Ring the Bank of England and tell them to stop selling bonds at huge losses and sending the bill to taxpayers. No other Central Bank is doing this and the Bank of England says it is not crucial to its monetary policy.

2. The main austerity check is the need to get public debt falling as a percentage of GDP by year 5.For some unknown reason they use public sector debt excluding the Bank of England. If they used the wider definition including the Bank of England, debt would be reduced by the huge cash payments the Treasury is currently making to the Bank, as that cash reappears as an asset at the Bank.

 

3. Recapture the £20 bn of public sector productivity lost since 2020. just stop external recruitment of admin, civil service and back up staff and run the numbers down by natural wastage.

 

4. Implement the excellent Labour slogan that if people can work they should work. Provide the support, training and incentives to get more people out of long term worklessness.

Taking the fuel payment away is a calculated  political decision. Letting a wide range of threats to tge self employed, to strivers, to savers and go investors worry people for 2 months before a budget is also a political choice. It is driving people abroad, leading people to sell assets, get out of being landlords and selling U.K. shares before the attacks materialise. The danger for the Chancellor is it may prove easier to undermine confidence and depress people than to pick them up again after a nasty budget.