Over the next few days I want to explore work.

Both the Labour and Coalition governments of recent years say they value work. They urge everyone of working age who can do so to get a job. They want people to take financial responsibility for themselves and their families.

The arguments between them are not ostensibly about the aim, but the effectiveness of their chosen policies. The Coalition has said it is concentrating on making it more worthwhile to work, and easier to create jobs. It has cut Labour’s planned National Insurance hikes, and cut income taxes for the low paid. That is all helpful. Labour favoured paying more in work benefit to subsidise low wages subject to taxes.

However, the cruel paradox is both in government have carried on taxing both job creation and earning. Both are strongly in favour of taxing people who choose to work long hours and take business risks,  claiming that high earners should make a bigger contribution to tax revenues. They thought a higher rate would bring more tax revenue, but it brought lower revenue instead.

 Taxing things does deter people from doing them. Governments tax smoking, drinking and driving because they see these things as wrong. They wish to reduce the amount of them that takes place, and punish the people financially who do them.  The more government tax job creation, earning and effort, the less they should expect of each of them. The irony is they need the hugh tax revenues from them  to subsidise the low net pay people earn after tax or to pay  people not to work.

The Coalition says it wishes to break into this mad cycle. It has had some success in creating a climate in which the private sector has created a lot of extra jobs. It has had modest success so far at reducing the rate of new inward migration, so more of the new jobs go to people already here and on benefits.  The next stage of this programme may need lower taxes on earning and job creating to give it more impetus, and more action to tackle EU as well as non EU migration.

It is now fashionable to say that the UK economy needs more capital spending in general, and more public capital spending in particular. The one area where both the outgoing Labour government and the Coalition government did decide to cut was capital spending. Both now think they need to abate these cuts.

It is always advisable where there is an establishment consensus in the UK to probe it. It is often wrong. The establishment combined to recommend the ERM, and to claim the benefits of belonging to the EU as designed  by centralisers on the continent. So how well have they thought through public capital spending?

The first thing to recognise is there are various types of capital spending. Let us identify four:

 

1. Spending to put in new facilities and to open new services – “growth” spending. E.g. HS2, to provide a new faster train service to Birmingham from London.

2. Spending to extend existing services to cope for increasing demand – as with new schools or hospitals in  busy areas, often coping with the increase in population  E.g. new primary schools in Wokingham

3. Replacement capital – new schools or rebuilt roads to replace existing capacity

4. Investment in labour or energy saving or other productivity enhancing improvements in service delivery.

More of type four, cost reducing and productivity enhancing investment in the provision of public services could be a very good idea. It helps to bring the deficit down over time, assuming a decent return on the investment made through cost saving.

Type one is clearly incompatible with bringing the deficit down. Anything which increases the future current spending of the government through offering new or additional service makes it more difficult to control the deficit..

Type two also swells the deficit. Controlling migration better would reduce the need for such expenditures. Having more success than the previous government in fostering private sector led recovery outside London and the South east would also help, as it would reduce the need for internal migration and extra facilities in the hard pressed south.

Type 3 spending can be helpful. It should be allied with type four, so that the replacement facilities can be run more effectively and cheaply.

All capital spending boosts total UK output, as most of the money is spent on UK building and construction work, and provides jobs for people who have to be based in the UK to carry them out. There will be imported elements in the building supplies consumed, where UK industry could probably do better at import substitution given favourable circumstances for industrial expansion here.

Those who simply urge more capital spending should recognise that some is good and some is unhelpful when it comes to curbing the deficit. Schemes with high future running costs for the state are not helpful. It is most important that new capital concentrates on doing things better and more effectively to help control running costs. Privately financed capital projects with no recourse to the taxpayer to pick up the losses would be most welcome to use some of the slack in the building industry.

I wish all my readers a happy and prosperous new year.

Today’s story in the Times that federalists in the EU are thinking of a new associate status for the UK as a privileged trading partner outside the emerging political union is great news. It shows that the UK can negotiate a new relationship with them. I shows  that many on the continent now recognise that the UK cannot join their Euro union and needs a looser relationship with them based on trade.

 

There are still commentators who find it difficult to distinguish debt from deficit. The UK government itself sometimes says it has “paid down a quarter of the deficit”. Whilst this phrase does not say they have paid off any debt, it can mislead the unwary into thinking maybe they have. Polling shows that many think there have been big spending cuts in the UK  and that the debt is now falling.

The truth as many readers here will know is all too different. The UK is still running a deficit of over £100 billion a year. Current public spending  has been increased by this government.  That means that the UK state is still adding to our debts by more than  £100 billion again this year, or by nearly  £1700 for every man, woman and child in the country. Meanwhile total state debt exceeds £1000 billion, excluding the state banks’ debts, PFI, PPP and various pension items.  That’s nearly £17000 per person of debt already racked up.

All these debts have to be repaid one day. This generation is building up debt to live beyond our means, in the hope that our children will come along and be able to pay it back, or be able to refinance it at sensible  interest rates.

So far the Coalition has cut the deficit, which means they have cut the rate at which the debts increase, by around one quarter. Recent figures imply some backsliding even on this modest improvement. If all goes according to plan  this Parliament they will add around £600 billion to our state debt, or almost £10,000 extra borrowing for every man woman and child in the UK. The increase in the debt this Parliament will be more than the total official state debt ten years ago.

In summary, the UK state has a large mortgage, its big inherited debts, and is still running up ever bigger bills. Living so much beyond its means  requires it to keep increasing the mortgage.  The only good news is the last two years have seen a bit less added to the total debt than in 2009-2010.

There are some who seem to think increasing the debt like this is essential to growth. They have to answer why there have been two recessions at periods of very high borrowing. They may well say the borrowing goes up owing to the recession, but that still does not explain why such huge rises in debt failed to get the economy going again. They also need to answer why past recoveries have begun with  reductions in planned or actual public sepnding to bring the deficit down as part of the recovery plan.

 

 

 

It looks as if the world’s authorities  are all determined to do what it takes,  to print as much money as they dare, keep interest rates low for a long time, in a desperate bid to move the world economy forward more quickly.

In 2013 the whole world will be reflating. China and the other emerging economies have served their penance for high inflation, and are now shifting back to a more accommodating policy stance. Meanwhile the Fed, the Bank of England the Bank of Japan are all planning to expand money and credit as much as possible. Inflation fighting takes  a back seat.

2013 may be another year when the Euro area muddles through its debt problems, at the expense of poor output figures and continuing unemployment. The US should continue to grow somewhat, whilst Chinese and emerging market growth may pick up a little from the lower rates hit in 2012. The UK too should start to edge forwards next year, as some of the easy money the Bank is creating and injecting will at last get into the real economy. Who knows how long or deep a recession the electors in the most damaged parts of the EU will put up with as a result of the Euro experiment. Falling output will prolong the period of time it takes to get on top of the debts and deficits.

I doubt the UK will accept it needs to cut tax rates to increase the revenue and to stimulate activity, though that would help. I expect the US to come up with a temporary fix for the so called fiscal cliff, but do not expect the fiscal tightening in the USA to remove the modest growth in the US economy. The new Chinese leadership seems to have made a solid start and will doubtless wish to implement the policy of expanding domestic incomes and demand more rapidly, in the face of more limited opportunity to expand exports.

In other words, 2013 will be more of the same. The emerging market countries will grow fastest. The US will be the best of the west. Europe will be a weak performer, held back by stressed banks and by poor state finances, as well as by the Euro scheme.  The UK will undertake more monetary experiments, and should meet commentator expectations for some  slow growth in 2013.

 

Mr Carney the proposed new Governor of the Bank  made clear in his recent lecture that a bit more inflation might be a price worth paying for more growth. I doubt that more inflation helps in that way. Past UK experience shows that when the authorities become cavalier about inflation it is possible to lose control of it, with bad consequences for output and jobs in due course.

However, Mr Carney has certainly got off to an inflationary start when it comes to his own salary and housing allowance. A total package of more than £870,000 is generous in a public sector and regulatory job.  The basic pay of  £480,000 is 57% higher than the present Governor’s basic. Then there are arguments over how the rest of the package compares to the present Governor’s generous pension arrangements.  Even allowing for this, the Bank seems to be exempted from the public sector pay feeze policy.

As a supporter  of free enterprise, I have no problems with people in the private sector earning large sums. All I ask is that their customers, shareholders and other providers of finance pay for it and accept it, and that none of it comes from tax revenues. There should be no recourse to state subsidy.  I do have issues with people charging the taxpayer for very large salaries.

The worry about Mr Carney is already that he will not be hawk enough on inflation. He will need to send clear anti inflaiton signlas when he arrives, to avoid losing confidence in the authorities’ resolve on these matters. He also needs to woo, not undermine savers.

I wish him well when he arrives in this country. I hope when here he listens carefully to those of  who want him to succeed. There is much he can do, but being careless about inflation or public sector value for money would not be a good idea. Savers have had a poor deal in recent years, yet we are trying to recover from a borrowing crisis, where people did not save enough.

He also needs to examine what he can do as Governor to create stronger banks sooner, in a position to finance a decent recovery from here. The exisiting Bank’s policy towards commercial banks has left some of them pensioners of the state, and unwilling or unable to finance a normal recovery.

 

            In 2010 at the start of the Coalition Nick Boles published an interesting book on how to remodel government. Entitled “Which way’s up?” it brought together a lot of exciting ideas for changing government for the better.

             I agreed with many of them. I have always wanted wider ownership and more participation in the wealth of the country for all. I like devolving power from government to individuals, families, charities and private institutions. I am up for a major improvement in productivity and quality throughout the public sector. This is all common ground. Some of the ideas drew on things Conservatives  were doing in 1980s, some on the radical maifesto of Hannan and Carlswell, the “Plan”.

             At the core of much of it was a plea for a radical transformation of government, devolving power from central government and Whitehall to Town Hall. Mr Boles recommended the abolition of all District Councils, the introduction of elected Mayors, and the transfer of many powers to  County and Borough government. He recommended Councils having more powers to tax, so that half their revenues come from local taxes, to enable central taxes to be cut further as services are transferred. He wanted Councils to have more power to make more government decisions that affect everyone’s lives.

               I mention this today because Mr Boles is now in a position to do something about all this. He has settled in as  Planning Minister in the Department for local government. He is working with and for a radical Secretary of State, Eric Pickles. Mr Pickles has already swept aside much of our unloved English regional government structure. The question is, what will this pair now do to reduce the amount of government we have in total, and to transfer functions to local control where governemnt is needed?

                In Mr Boles own area of planning we were promised a system where once a local Council has an approved plan national Inspectors and Ministers will not second guess it on appeal. So far this has not been delivered. Appeal decisions still go against Councils with plans, undermining their ability to negotiate strong Section 106 agreements.  Time will tell whether Mr Boles can and will do it. I wish him well.

                 It will be interesting to see what if any monument for less central government he chooses, and how easy he finds it to push through what remains overall a very bureacratic and centralised structure. There are more gold stars  for finding things government no longer needs to do at all, but there are good marks to be won  for stronger and more accountable local government as well.

 

               The public sector is not very good at controlling public assets. One of the ways the government could make the money it spends go further in the new year would be to get a better grip on all the assets it buys and uses. This applies to all departments and quangos. It applies to assets used  by staff, and by the general public.

                The NHS, for example, sends many people out of hospital each year with walking sticks, crutches, wheelchairs and other aids to mobility. Many get better. Some of the NHS assets get put in the garage, discarded as no longer needed. There is no universal system for the NHS to get its items back for another patient to use.

                  Many departments allow their staff  laptops and mobile phones for use at home or away from the office. Has there been a recent audit of them?  Are they returned when a staff member leaves or moves job?

                   Does the department or quango have an effective way of preventing theft by staff or public?  I was reminded of the dangers talking to a hotelier recently of how they have to find ways to ensure a minority of paying guests do not take bath robes, bed linen, or even lamps and tvs out with them at the end of their stay. The NHS sometimes has patients who think items from the hospital would be a suitable compensation for being ill.

                    I would be interested in your experiences of how well the public sector controls the issue of assets in the first place, and their recovery when no longer needed for the intended purpose. If the government started 2013 with an amnesty to get property back, it might amount to a lot of money.

                     There is also the issue of oversupply. Many people receive medicines, medical supplies, special diet food and the like, in quantities well beyond their needs or willingness to consume. Once issued to a patient, the NHS will not take back unused items, even though they have survived with the packaging intact. Could there be better systems for controlling the issue, and doing more of the storage through the suppliers and just in time systems?  In public sector offices and schools, what are the rules on private use and access to office consumables?   When did the public sector last enjoy a proper de stocking exercise, to use up the large stock positions before they are damaged or out of date? What is the wastage rate?

                       I will take these matters up with the Cabinet Office for central government. Councillors could do the same for their local authorities.

 

Today I am interested in  how far you think the  EU will go in creating the United States of Europe?

How much power will it have?

How long will it last?

How much unemployment,recession, lack of democracy will people put up with in the various countries?

When will they start to blame their EU government rather than their national governments for their plight?

 

I wrote this when I was last in the Scillies, a beautiful part of the country I love.  

Scilly empires

 

Waves heave and scour in fury at Hell Bay
Calm will bring peace on the beach next day.
The great dashing ocean has time on its side
To flatten us all on some future spring tide.

 

Waves, wind ,sea can all bide their time
These lovely islands are well past their prime.
Each wave which hurls, each wave that smashes
Leaves less shore, or a cliff that crashes.

 

Each wind which blows, each hail which breaks,
Loosens stones, shatters rocks: every plant shakes.
Granite turns to sand, shorelines slip away,
Samson’s hills are parted, the sand bar can’t stay.

 

One island once, twenty long since
Now fifty or more, with many just hints.
They give rocks tough names – like men-a-vaur-
But they know one day they’ll be no more.

 

Empires are like these islands, now humbled
Europe seeks union, but past efforts crumbled.
They tell us that Europe can soon be as one
That conflicts, battles, wars are all done

 

They say one currency will make it alright
That one army will unite us to fight
They urge us together, to build one nation.
We may not want it: they seek an ovation.

 

To all who want Europe to be one
Tell them the people will not let that run.
For people are like the waves of the sea
They break empires – like islands: they won’t let them be.

 

Some Scilly rocks became sand grains
Once lovely hills became a beach
If islands can be levelled
How far can unwanted empires reach?

 

           I will not be posting today, nor moderating.  All are still welcome to contribute as you wish.

           I wish you and your friends and families a very happy Christmas. 

          I would like to thank you all for contributing to this lively and wide ranging blog. I learn from it. Together we can influence the mainstream media and the debate. It is always worthwhile in a democracy offering new analysis and a different point of view.