In the last budget the government said it wanted more jobs. It put up tax on employing people. Vacancies fell, Unemployment shot  up.

The government wanted more food grown. It increased tax on family farms. Farmers gave up farming or looked for ways to switch out of food growing.

The government wanted to back UK industry but intensified bans and dear energy  to decarbonise.There has been a tsunami of big industrial closures.

The government wanted to tax the rich more. 16,000 millionaires left the country to escape all UK tax

If tomorrow the government taxes people’s homes more that will do more damage to the housing market. It will be another obstacle to their lie  in the sky dream of building 1.5 m homes

If they persist with their new tariffs or carbon border tax that will upend their wish to grow faster via more trade.

If they impose a user tax on battery cars that will slow their wish to see more sales of these vehicles

If they continue  with current bans and windfall taxes on UK oil and gas they will speed the developing collapse of that industry and our whole petro chemical industry.

If they add to the bank tax that will  slow down loans and credit needed to power growth

If they tax pension saving more, people will invest less

The President of the EU Commission has just set out four main conclusions about Ukraine.

She says “Borders cannot be changed by force”.  It’s a great principle which many of us would like to be observed by all. Instead  Putin has just changed the borders de facto by force. The original borders can only be restored by applying much more force to countering and evicting the Russian army. As the EU has no wish to join the fight, fails to provide enough money and weapons to Ukraine to ensure ejection of  the Russian army, and helps finance Russia by buying Russian oil and gas it is difficult to see what she means by this first statement. France in particular has been unwilling to provide much by way of weapons and cash to help Ukraine evict the invader.

She says she wishes to establish that  “the centrality of the EU in securing peace for Ukraine must be fully protected”. The EU only has a role in the peace talks if both Russia and Ukraine wish them to do so, and if they have some leverage over the two combatants. The EU also needs to be conscious of the US involvement, given the large amount of money and weapons the US has been supplying and the US efforts to talk to both sides. She says Ukraine must join the EU single market and the “EU defence industrial base”. How would that work? Would the EU then give a security guarantee to the Ukraine for its borders, backed up by EU military forces?  Would the EU fund for rearmament give weapons to Ukraine? There has been no sign of that from the EU so far.

She says the Ukrainian children sent to Russia have to be returned. That is another great idea, but what will the EU do to bring that about? How can they now persuade Russia to do this, after months of diplomacy with no results?

The EU makes clear they want Ukraine to become an integrated part of their Union in due course.  Meanwhile they are unwilling to pay what it costs to win the war, and grandstand without committing any force to the conflict to try to enforce the rules they wish Russia to observe. The UK should tell the EU that if they want a better outcome and want Ukraine to join their Union they need to offer much more assistance to Ukrainian forces.

Labour is the party that puts more people onto benefits. Its economic policy is destroying jobs, forcing more people to rely on the state. Its migration policy is letting in more low pay and no pay foreigners, keeping pay down and reducing job opportunities for UK citizens. Its education policy is  leaving too many young people unemployed when they leave school and College.

Controlling this is meant to be a government priority. First turn off the supply of visas for people wanting low paid jobs or wishing to come in as dependents. 1.3 million foreigners are on Universal Credit, so let us stop new arrivals who would qualify.

Second, ask more of those on UC to seek work. Over 4 million do not have to look for a job, a big escalation in numbers over the last seventeen months. Why? Of course the severely disabled and ill should not have to, but many now with no work requirement could and should be looking for work. As 39% of all on PIP have a mental health condition, not a physical disability, many of these would find some work helped with their condition.

Third, intensify actions to get the 940,000 young people not in education, training or employment into work.

Fourth, smash the gangs to stop so many illegals relying on hotels or housing and benefits  provided by the state.

Many of us are gappy to pay tax to help the disabled or those  temporarily out of work. Ee are not happy to pay for a growing multitude of benefit recipients not looking for work , especially when recently arrived from abroad.

If Labour were not lecturing the rest of us that we need to pay more tax people might have more sympathy  with the Defence Secretary who decided paying standard Council tax was dear enough without having to pay  double  for a second home. Some might even think the former Housing Secretary was right that Stamp Duty is now way over the top and damaging the homes market, but not when  she had told the Chancellor to hike taxes more on people like her with more than one home and a six figure income.

Ministers should learn from their own wish to pay less tax that many now feel the state is stealing too much and delivering too little  with all the cash it takes. People feel squeezed because they have to pay so much tax on everyday living out of income already taxed heavily before they get what is left.

Lets take the case of someone whose average Income tax and NI rate on their Income is 40%.

If they buy petrol, taxed at 50%, their effective tax rate on the income needed for the purchase is 70%.

If they buy standard goods taxed at 20% VAT the rate is 52%

If they pay their Council tax it is 100%

If they pay any other tax or government licence fee it is 100%

If they buy a new car at 20% VAT with say 10% first year VED it is 58%

If they save the 60% they will be liable for at least 40% tax on any income they make on the savings.

No wonder we feel so badly off. If your Council tax, VED, congestion charge, government licences are expensive relative to your income the high effective tax rate is especially damaging to your standard of living.

People who work hard, take risks, set up businesses want some benefits from their efforts. Current taxes are now collectively too high leading too many to emigrate or to do less.

Prices going up is usually a bad thing. If food, rents and energy prices go up too much living standards fall and people on lower incomes are particularly badly affected as they spend a big proportion of their incomes on basics.Better off people are made to spend very big proportions of their income on a wide array of taxes. When they go up people rein in spending or leave   the country.

Governments facing an inflation often intervene to control prices. They offer to stop rents or food prices or energy going up. This is popular when they start to do it, holding out hope of relief from ever rising and increasingly unaffordable bills. It becomes unpopular when people find out it cannot work in the longer term, as it stifles supply and investment in more capacity. It will lead to higher prices as we see in UK energy.

The current government presided  over a near doubling of inflation in its first 16 months. It has increased the number of areas subject to price control and has exercised existing powers to control prices.

Despite or because of price controls energy has got dearer, with  increases in managed prices. The government’s big interventions in  favour of more renewables has hiked energy costs.

Rail fares have gone up, with a large government pay settlement for train drivers adding to cost pressures.

Water bills have shot up  with government deciding to require or allow the industry  to invest much more in new pipes  and water works.They need to catch up with the big increase in population brought about by government migration policy.

Food bills have gone up,with domestic farmers growing  less thanks to higher taxes and withdrawal of subsidies.

Rents have  shot up thanks to extensive new controls and taxes on landlords. Many smaller landlords are exiting the market. Government contractors have been bidding  up rents to give priority to recently arrived migrants.

Wherever price  controls have been tried it leads to less supply. To get prices under control you need more supply. Dear energy created by overriding markets is now leading  to many industrial closures, driving home supply down further and adding to inflationary pressures.

1. Remove all interest from reserves, cutting Bank of England losses by £22 bn
2. Remove interest from minimum reserves  needed as the ECB does. Bank said they need minimum reserves of £325 bn (low end of range). So that saves them 4% on £229 bn or £9 bn.
3. Pay a lower rate on reserves to give Bank a spread between its lending  and borrowing rates. E.g 0.5% less or £2.75 bn
4. Double Bank levy raising £1.3 bn
5. Return Corporation Tax surcharges  to 8% raising around £2 bn

The Home Secretary had more than a year as Justice Secretary. She let out a lot of prisoners early, watched as wrongful releases rose in numbers, allowed a weakening of  control over the prisons and was promoted to leave Mr Lammy with a difficult inheritance where he blamed his predecessors.

She now tells us she is carrying out the biggest ever changes to our immigration system. I doubt that. The biggest changes have been made by the European Court of Human Rights endlessly extending the grounds to allow more and more people to come and stay against the wishes of many voters and past  Ministers. Big changes were made during our period in the EU when we had to have open borders. Brexit has stopped the flows of EU nationals, only to see many more coming from non EU countries as government,  the public sector employers  and business have welcomed more and more in to take lower paid jobs and then to be joined by dependents.

The present package of measures can help a bit,  but does not go far enough to stop the boats and smash the gangs, nor to relieve the pressures of legal migration on homes, infrastructure and benefits.

When will she produce draft legislation and when will it pass the Commons? Why the delay?

How can she limit the jurisdiction of the European Court of human rights  over migration cases when the government is firm that it wishes to abide by international law and the Convention? She will need to negotiate and agree changes with the ECHR which will take time and give limited or no improvement.

When she says people granted asylum may need to return to their home countries if the UK view of these countries changes, how will she enforce deportation if the people want to stay? What will be the status of children born here to people granted refuge?

How often will the government make a new assessment of a country’s risks and status? Will Afghanistan under the Taliban ever be deemed  safe? Sudan in civil war? Iran under the theocracy?

When she offers additional legal routes for people to seek asylum, will there be any limit on numbers? Could we see all the people currently coming by illegal boat simply being able to come legally with speedier processing? Will people using these legal routes require prior vetting on the continent before being allowed to come here by boat or plane from France?

It is important to both reduce legal migration substantially and stop illegal. These measures will not do either.

Reform led Worcestershire County inherited a tight budget with rising spending for 2025-6 from the outgoing Council when it took over at the beginning of the new financial year. Councillors rightly argued for lower spending to get elected.

Instead of making early spending reductions which were clearly needed in its first year in office it  has allowed  spending  to rise more, well above its income growth. It inherited a maximum increase in Council tax bringing in considerable extra revenue.  The Council has also drawn down more reserves to pay some of the bills over and above the tax rise.

It  has now asked for a Capitalisation Directive from the government. This is an emergency device which allows a Council to borrow to pay the running bills, where under the rules they are only usually allowed to borrow for capital investment. They are meant then to take action to control future costs to avoid further overspending in  later years. If the Council carries on borrowing to cover running costs of services it can get into an unaffordable debt spiral, with interest costs taking up more and more of the income.

For 2025-6 its first year the new Council will use £23 million from inherited reserves for current spending, and will borrow a further £33.6m under this special permission from government. This borrowing will need to be repaid with interest over the following 20 years. This has happened despite receiving the extra  tax from a full 5% Council Tax rise this year imposed by the outgoing Council.

The Council is now consulting on its 2026-7 budget. It says it wants an additional £98 m to spend on a net revenue budget of around £500 m. It asks for views on Council tax rises below the 5% maximum, at the 5% maximum and at the higher levels of 7.5% and 10% where they would need government permission. Assuming the 5% rise, they say they will still have a gap of £66m between their wish to spend and their income. From the look of the document they think their tax choice rests between 5% and higher.They are consulting  on another Capitalisation Directive, to borrow an additional £43.6 m to cover current spending.

The document mentions the possibility of reducing the growth in spending, but sets out no options on how to do this. It argues that corporate overheads have been cut in previous years and are under good control. They are stated as just 3% of the budget total, whilst soaring debt costs as they borrow more are now 5% of the budget. It is unlikely the public will write in with a costed schedule of spending cuts. This surely should be the job of the Councillors to set them out with the officers, and to consult the public on them.

I urge the Council to identify the savings necessary to avoid more emergency borrowing and to keep the Council tax rise down . The government back up  of allowing emergency borrowing for cost over runs must not become a regular event as that is the route to the public sector equivalent of  bankruptcy.