There are 1 million people out of work at a time when there is an abundance of jobs on offer with many  businesses desperate to recruit more staff. There are also 6 million people of working age excluding students   not looking for work.

The government is now turning its attention to these issues. It is a much better idea to spend some time and money on helping UK citizens into the jobs on offer than constantly looking to increase the  number of permits for economic migrants to come and fill the vacancies.

The Welfare Secretary is planning to re introduce the checks and interviews that were in place before covid for those on out of work benefits. Under Universal credit you should always be better off taking the job, so more help, support and encouragement from the Jobs service should help.

We also need to consider how many of those permanently on benefits might like the opportunity to get some work. There is clearly a lot of unused talent still in the UK which we need to train, support and help into employment. It can bring them more money and more interesting lives, and it can bring savings for the taxpayer.

Last week some of you complained I did not point out in the housing debate that high levels of inward migration add substantially to housing demand. I have regularly pointed this out and called for more control of economic migrant numbers , as well as regularly urging  tougher action against people smuggling and illegal migrants. The debate last week was not involving the Home Office who are responsible for migration policy and speeches were limited to just four minutes.

It is the case that whilst economic migrants may be a cheap solution for some businesses seeking labour it is often a dear solution for taxpayers. Each new migrant needing a social rented home, school places for children, surgery and hospital facilities and transport capacity may need around £200,000 of capital to be found or invested new to make the necessary provision. I have argued that government should therefore limit numbers more than it does. I have also said that the set up capital for a new migrant  should be paid for out of the  overseas aid budget. If we took 100,000 migrants fewer this year that would save a possible £20 bn of capital. Clearly if migrants were willing to go to Council areas that have spare social homes and public service capacity there is a much lower cash outlay, but as we rightly  do not order people where to go many go to areas of high demand with little or no spare capacity.

I will have another go as the government is now looking for spending reductions.

The Treasury forecast for debt interest this year is £83bn, up from £23.5bn in 2021-21.  Trying to scare us all, they do not spin out their forecast of debt interest for 2024-5 as they see it tumbling to £ 46.7bn, a fall of 44% from this year’s estimated number.

They chose to count oranges and apples in their figure. They add to the actual debt interest paid out to savers who hold government bonds the amount by which index linked bonds increase in capital value on eventual repayment. No cash passes to the bond holder alongside the regular interest payments. On repayment of the bond at the enhanced value the government usually rolls over the debt and borrows the new amount. What matters when drawing up the annual budget is the cash cost of paying the interest on the debt,  not the eventual capital repayment value of indexed debt.If this matters the government should also credit itself with the fact that the bulk of the debt will be repaid in devalued pounds, a large real saving at current inflation rates.

Strange on their own figures the Treasury do not want to spread the great news debt interest is about to fall off a cliff next year. Why are they playing these games? They seem determined to sandbag the U.K. economy with big tax rises at the same time as the Bank of England sticks up interest rates and the inflation that have created slashes real incomes. They clearly want no growth or a recession.

There are many Opposition MPs and senior government officials who are keen that the UK should stay wedded to EU laws and rules. They take the EU’s side in any dispute even when the EU is being outrageous as with GB/NI trade. They seem to want to keep us in line with perhaps the thought in mind that one day if there is a more pro EU government they can then negotiate some sort of enhanced co-operation Treaty that falls short of full membership but gives them whatever it is they like about the EU.

The paradox lies in the fact that the EU has made some sensible policy changes since we left, but they do not seem so keen to follow those. The EU has suspended the Maastricht debt and deficit criteria and is allowing more state borrowing. The UK Treasury has developed a UK version of the old rules, so wedded are they to them. The EU has made gas a green transition fuel, recognising the reality that gas will remain crucial to heating our homes and fuelling our factories this decade. The UK has stuck with the old EU definitions. Various EU countries have cut fuel duty by double the amount we have cut it in the UK but the pro EU people are not rushing to do it here. It seems they only like the EU when it restricts us,taxes us and makes life difficult.

I trust the government now presses on with sorting out the Northern Ireland protocol. The Unionist MPs have made clear they cannot go into the Assembly, the crucial part of the Good Friday Agreement, all the time NI is cut off from free trade with the rest of the UK by unwarranted EU interventions. There is good legal ground for us to resolve  this by taking control of our own internal trade in Northern Ireland which should be nothing to do with the EU, as long as we help enforce no movement of illegal goods into the Republic. My preferred way of doing it is via Clause  38 of the Withdrawal Agreement Act, but Article 16 of the Protocol itself also allows us to do this.

Here’s a paradox. In some parts of the country like Wokingham there is too much private sector investment going into new homes. The planning system decides that the homes should be built in these places, and then people from all over the UK and from abroad acquire them. Meanwhile in other parts of the country they are crying out for more investment and have very few new homes  being built. These places often lose people who migrate elsewhere to set up businesses  or to find  better jobs and new homes.  As the government wishes to level up and believes in planning it needs to change the planning system to allow places under too much development pressure to have less and places wanting more investment to have more. There is no iron law of geography or business development which says so much of the new housing and then so much of the consequential extra employment has to take place in a limited number of locations.

The imbalance in rates of development increases the cost of providing infrastructure and public services. In places with falling or slowly rising populations there is often excess capacity . Public services may need to think of closing surgeries or schools as the users reduce. The private sector may well have excess capacity in its water pipes, broadband links, electricity cables and the rest. In the fast growing areas many of these facilities need expanding and upgrading to cate for all the extra people.

With diesel at £1.90 a litre the Treasury is raking in 32 p a litre VAT on top of the 53p  of duty, a total of 85p. This is considerably more than forecast for this year before the oil price went up. The Treasury should cut VAT to at most 15% on motor fuel from 20% to cut the pump price by 8 p a litre , so the cost of living is not pushed higher by aggressive extra tax on fuel.

This tax cut should apply in Northern Ireland as part of the U.K. The Treasury seems to think it cannot alter VAT in NI thanks to the Protocol. That is a strange reading of that document as it does not grant  the EU any powers over our tax system. We used to differentiate VAT from Republic of Ireland choices of goods and rates even when were  both in the EU. Outside we must be free to set our own taxes.

The promised legislation to clarify the Protocol and to uphold our internal market and lawmaking competence can address this issue. It appears it will need take a strong statement of U.K. law to persuade  the pro EU or craven Treasury into  accepting it can control U.K. VAT. The PM needs to tell the Chancellor the  U.K. expects tax cuts that could help cut inflation and ease the squeeze.

Dear Sir John
Further to my letter dated 24th May 2022 in response to one of your constituents, and our
recent conversation, I would like to address your concerns.
In response to a Parliamentary Question laid by Steve Baker MP, answered on 19th May
2022, Rt Hon Sajid Javid MP stated:
‘The United Kingdom supports a new international instrument to strengthen pandemic
prevention and preparedness. The purpose of the instrument is to strengthen global
cooperation in order to better protect the UK from the health, social and economic impacts
of pandemics. We want to agree UK priority areas such as improving transparency, timely
data sharing and supporting equitable access to vaccines and treatments.
We are clear that the UK would not sign up to any instrument that compromises the UK’s
sovereignty. That includes any instrument which compromises the UK’s ability to take
domestic decisions on national restrictions or other measures. On the contrary, our
support for a new pandemic instrument is intended to strengthen our ability to prevent,
detect and respond to future health threats without the restrictions seen during the COVID19 pandemic. The UK has led from the front on learning to live with COVID-19 and will
continue to do so at the forthcoming G7 and World Health Assembly’
Further, I would like to reassure you that there is nothing in the proposed elements which
would constrain our ability to take health decisions nationally. Indeed, there are no plans to
give powers that sit with the UK Parliament or Government to the WHO as part of this
work.
The Government always carefully considers whether domestic legislation will be required
to implement the UK’s international obligations when negotiating a treaty. In all
circumstances, the UK’s ability to exercise its sovereignty would remain unchanged.
I hope this clarifies the issue for you,
MAGGIE THROUP

What do you think of this?

The Chancellor should abandon Labour’s idea of various windfall taxes. In the end consumers have to pay higher taxes levied on business. These extra taxes put inflation up, not down. The Chancellor should also abandon his proposal to hike corporation tax next year. All these extra taxes on business may poll well, but the slow growth  or no growth, cancelled investment and lost jobs they will likely  bring will not look so good to voters in the next election if he insists on damaging the economy Labour’s way.

I read that he is pressing on with trying to construct a windfall levy on electricity companies. The ones that are closest to the consumer have already had their finances demolished by badly chosen price controls, with one of the biggest now a problem for the Treasury as it demands subsidies and sits there nationalised. He is finding that if we want to tax windfall profits by the power generators the ones that make the most are the renewable owners when the wind does blow and the sun does shine. Their generating costs have  not shot up but their power prices have. The ones we rely on much of the time using gas to keep the lights on are not making much windfall profit as the cost of their gas is one of the main inflationary problems.

The Chancellor thinks if he offers businesses tax breaks when they make a new investment they will carry on happily under his high and unpredictable business tax regime.  Why? An investor looks at the lifetime  cashflows and tax burden, not just at the first couple of years when you are putting in the buildings and equipment. They all look a lot worse with the higher taxes the Chancellor has in mind.

The Jubilee is a time to look back and to recognise our own personal journeys and how they are interwoven with the evolving life of the nation.  Like most people I  have never know another monarch. Queen Elizabeth has always been there. Her accent, way of doing the job and attitudes have evolved as the nation has changed.The nation expects complete political neutrality, visibility, but a little reserve and mystery.

I remember as a young child asking my parents to explain the rubble and overgrown weeds of a bomb site that still survived  in my home city of Canterbury. We had a new shopping centre that had emerged from the rubble. I had never asked why the shopping centre was new. It never occurred to my child mind it could have been  blown up by enemies. Beyond the city walls there was still a little lingering evidence of war that I had not understood.  I remember the sense of shock I felt when my parents gave me a sanitised short simplified explanation of bombing. My naivety that adults were protective of children was dented by this new information as I saw it meant everyone had been bombed.

As the war receded in the rear view mirror prosperity spread more widely through the country as we picked the fruits of peace.  The  1960s and 1980s for all their struggles were years of great progress in advancing a consumer revolution. The revelation of the Mini brought small cars to many more families. The mass production of affordable fridges, washing machines and driers greatly improved meal preparation and transformed washday. Cheaper package holidays allowed many more to go abroad for sun and sights. Central heating delivered new standards of winter comfort banishing the frozen windows and cold bedrooms. Tvs made their way into most homes and were adapted to coloured photography. Later the ubiquitous home computers and mobile phones morphed us into a digital age, providing us each with computing power that the state alone had developed and owned to help win the world war.

I remember as a young child having to visit an ageing old man. He lived in a Victorian terrace house which was little changed from how it must have been all those years before when first constructed. The house was still lit by gas lamps. The water for the tea slow boiled on a coal fired range. Just the one room  was  properly heated by the coal burner. The front room was forbidden territory only used for funerals or other unexplained and infrequent important functions. I was not allowed in it. We were entertained in the all purpose back dark living room . There was a large general purpose table and hard chairs to sit on. Like all adult chairs I had to mountaineer to get on one. As an only child in a world of adults I got used to living in rooms furnished for giants.  There were heavy brocade cloths and house plants as decoration.  I was delighted when we returned home to a more modern world. Much has got a lot better over the last seventy years.

When I talk to my young grandsons I think how the generations can stretch understandings of time. I can try to tell them what the world must have been like in the early twentieth  century from relatives who told me and they may in due course be able to look back from the early years of the twenty second century on how we live now.If a new generation will stand on the shoulders of an older generation it will see further and understand more.

The monarch provides such a living thread through our national story. Monarchs no longer make the laws, impose the taxes or spend the public money, but they are in regular contact with those who do. They are part of the public memory of things in history, part of the continuities of national life. The street parties taking place are very similar to those of long gone royal events in centuries past. The royal family itself has within it the tragedies, conflicts and disasters that befall others played out for all to see. It reminds us regularly of the strength of some family ties and the problems they can bring as the royal family has its share of divorces, family feuds, and inappropriate behaviours.