Anyone submitting a comment to this site is giving their permission for it to be published here along with the name and identifiers they have submitted.
The moderator reserves the sole right to decide whether to publish or not.
No budget for British Steel losses?
I asked in the Lords yesterday
“What is the Government’s budget for steel losses this year and next? Will all that money be diverted from the steel modernisation provision in the current Budget?”
“The Government took action to stabilise operations at British Steel. We have appointed a new chair and asked him and the board to bring forward a transformation plan. Once that has been agreed, we will be in a better position to set out the long-term future, to attract private sector investment and to understand what this means for long-term public sector finance.”
Follow up questions were also blocked. Surely the government has a budget for the public spending costs of nationalised British Steel. We have been told it is losing £1.3 m a day and continues to trade thanks to money from the government said to be the provision of working capital.
It is unacceptable that government has been in control of this business for more than a year and a half, still does not have a Business plan, and is unable to tell us how they will get the losses down. Taxpayers have to pay the losses to keep it going. It looks as if a £2.5 bn budget allocation for steel modernisation is being raided for these payments. The idea of the budget line was meant to be grants and loans to support the provision of new investment, particularly to build electric arc furnaces to replace blast furnaces.
The Treasury do not explain their new policy on bonds and the money supply
I have pointed out before that on 17 September the Chancellor wrote an important letter to the Bank Governor granting permission and expressing agreement to the Bank now holding £120 bn of long bonds showing big losses at current prices instead of selling them, and agreeing to the Treasury buying up the other bonds instead of selling them in the market.
When I asked the Lords Minister why they were doing this I was wrongly told the Bank is independent. The Chancellor’s letter implies the opposite. Clearly the Chancellor has to agree to the Treasury buying the bonds and he has a big interest in when bonds are sold and at how big a loss as the Treasury has to pay for all losses.
Indeed the Chancellor makes clear his crucial role.
“The APF has been authorised by my predecessors to hold assets, primarily for monetary policy
purposes. In addition, and as set out below, I am today authorising a segregated portfolio of
APF gilts to be held for non-monetary policy purposes. Under the terms of the existing APF
indemnity, HM Treasury will continue to indemnify the Bank and the Bank of England Asset
Purchase Facility Fund (BEAPFF), so that any gains or losses arising out of, or in connection with,
the APF, including in relation to this segregated portfolio of APF gilts, are borne by HM Treasury.”
So why is he approving a segregated portfolio. Won’t this have to remain within the APF? Otherwise wouldn’t the APF have to transfer the bonds to another owner, triggering the losses and the Treasury guarantee against loss payments?
What is the monetary purpose of selling fewer of these bonds, and of selling the balance to the Treasury? How much will this save the Treasury in its very costly programme of paying for the losses? Let us have some clarity.
The Cabinet Secretary promises to tackle civil service productivity
I was pleased to read that the Cabinet Secretary recognises the poor productivity of the civil service, and sees she needs to rebuild the trust of many more taxpayers in the system they have to fund.When I wrote my Productivity Toolkit using the latest ONS figures up to 2025 the UK had experienced 25 years of public sector productivity not growing at all despite massive spending on computers and internet technology and the delivery of many more services on line instead of in person. The first decade of this century saw no gains. The second up to 2019 showed some improvements, which were all lost by the covid lockdowns. The recovery has been only partial leaving us with no growth in productivity for a quarter of century.
The civil service when tackled about this by Conservative and now Labour Ministers have proposed spending substantial sums on AI investment, with promised delayed improvement in productivity towards the end of the current Parliament as a result. This approach which has been adopted by this government leaves public sector costs far too high and escalating, and misses the main point. Why didn’t we capture the benefit of past extensive computerisation? Why did productivity fall off a cliff over covid without recovering fully when lockdowns ended? The AI budget was announced as £3.25 billion over three years with much of the spend this year. There has been no announced plan to ensure this results in savings and improvements, which will require plans to slim the civil service as the money is spent and as technology doe more of the work.
Ministers should engage with the Cabinet Secretary over how the civil service can urgently get back to 2019 levels of productivity, which was a pre AI era. They need to find out why past computerisation did not lead to smaller headcounts. I have never recommended compulsory redundancies. I have always proposed – or implement when a Minister – restrictions on new recruitment. Each time a person retires or leaves the Department should see how to amalgamate or abolish posts to avoid the need for new external recruitment. Where the post is essential another post can be removed with a reshuffle of staff.
We are promised big changes. Who will be the responsible Minister? Will the Prime Minister give it his time and set out a way through? I doubt this. The AI programme needs rescuing to ensure we get better quality at a lower price. So far extra AI spending just helps put the costs up without solving the productivity puzzle.
Productivity toolkit is available as a free download on the Centre for Policy Studies website.
EU Re Set fails Makerfield test
A Respected pollster has tested opinion in Makerfield ahead of Re Set.This is taken from the press release.
Conducted by Survation (member of UK Polling Council)
Designed by Dr Richard Johnson (Senior Lecturer in Politics, Queen Mary University of London)
Representative sample
Telephone interviews with 500 voters in the Makerfield constituency
Previously surveyed during the Makerfield by- electio n
Conducted: 21 October – 4 November 2026
Weighted sample to reflect demographics of constituency
Margin of error: 5.8ppts
Content: UK sovereignty
Poll on 10 policies which are wholly or partly outside of UK government control in the EU/Single Market
Who should decide these policies?
Innovative design
The purpose of the poll was to establish if the Prime Minister’s policies would meet his own “Makerfield Test” – whereby policies should not be introduced across the UK if they would not be acceptable to the electors of Makerfield.
The poll asked voters who should decide UK economic policy on ten different issues. It followed the design of a 2025 YouGov poll on British voters’ attitudes towards sovereignty run by Dr Richard Johnson, Senior Lecturer in Politics at Queen Mary, University of London. The poll deliberately did not mention the EU in order to break voters out of so-called Brexit ‘tribes’. Instead, the poll is designed to test core attitudes on where decisions are made.
In every case, a clear majority of the voters polled in Makerfield said policy should be decided by UK governments alone, with a range between 67% (medicine approval for the NHS) and 80% (state aid for regional development). This range included 69% support in the case of animal welfare standards, 74% for food standards, 75% for refusing criminals entry to the UK, and 78% for the setting of VAT rates.
So Re Set failed the Makerfield test with a huge majority wanting UK control of trade, borders, laws and taxes.
Same old Remain wrong soundbites
The threadbare case for the great EU give away is based on three false statements.
1. The UK has lost 4% ( or in some variants 8%) of GDP following the Brexit vote. GDP went up after the Brexit vote, and GDP behaved like EU GDP over the covid period. As the government tells us, our growth is currently faster than Germany, France and Italy in the EU. The 4% figure was an OBR forecast that productivity growth might be 0.25% a year less for 15 years so by 2035 productivity might have gone up 4% less. They never said we would lose 4% GDP as soon as we voted out or when we left.
2. Despite having a Free Trade Agreement with the EU bought at considerable expense the Re setters say we have lost exports to the EU owing to non tariff frictions. We need to adopt their extra laws and taxes to avoid this. Our total exports to the EU have risen since Brexit by 22%. Goods exports have grown slowly in cash terms as they did when we were in the EU. This is mainly due to UK high energy prices , de industrialisation and farm grants to give up food production. The UK mainly exports services which have surged in recent years, and mainly exports to non EU where we have been able to enter Free Trade Agreements the EU never achieved for us. They think goods exports are the main driver of growth when our total goods exports to the EU are just 5% of GDP.They will burden the big majority if companies with extra rules and taxes who do not export.
3. They claim there would be good growth opportunities from adopting EU laws and taxes.There never were between 2008-20 when we were fully in the EU. How come dearer energy via their emissions system, dearer raw materials via their carbon tariff, and more regulatory cost via their restrictive rules would make us better off when it would increase costs and make us less innovative and competitive?
These are the questions they will not answer
1.Our time in the EEC/EU gave us a growth rate two thirds the rate we enjoyed in the 20 years before entry. Why would going back in be different?
2. This century the EU has fallen further and further behind the US in growth, so EU GDP per head is now only one half the US.Why join the losers? Why not be independent , global and choosing the best laws and tax rates for success?
3. The UK buys much more food and goods from the EU than we sell to them. Aligning with them will boost their exports more than ours. GDP goes down if import growth exceeds export growth. It means more UK closures and lost jobs on our side of the channel.
The EU give away by Mr Burnham will slow our growth and cost a lot
DWP Ministers change policy in a way the government system cannot handle
In their rush to remove the Winter Fuel payment from anyone over 66 who is earning or receiving more than £35,000 a year Ministers have forced HMRC and pensioners into a lot of extra work. They have decided in their haste to pay everyone the £200 who is over 66, then to get the money back by a variety of different ways. So the state has to find the money, and has to spend money on getting the money back with a delay. HMRC is burdened with a new chore to use the tax system for something which should have been sorted out by the Benefits department.
I have no problems with the idea that people on comfortable incomes do not need fuel subsidy even when living at home all the time because they are not working. There will be arguments about what is comfortable these days. I do have arguments with this clumsy benefit as amended. Now a large number of people have to declare to HMRC their £200 which they are not entitled to so it can be clawed back in an awkward and delayed system. The system does cope with some other categories of people who do not qualify for Fuel benefit.
I have seen the letters the DWP is sending out to everyone over 66 this year. It tells them all that they “will get £200 for Winter Fuel payment” as before.
It then states their new policy “If your personal income is over £35,000 HMRC will take your payment back. You can find more about this under the heading “Check if HMRC will take your payment back”. There is no explanation of why this new policy is coming in and under what powers.
It goes on to say “This is your personal income only. If someone you live with will also get a payment, HMRC will look at their income separately. You can check if your income is over the threshold at www.gov.uk/guindance/payingback the winter fuel payment…..You will need to include the Winter fuel payment on your tax return. If you file your tax return on line where possible HMRC will include the Winter Fuel payment for you. You should check that your payment is automatically shown on your online return and include it if it is not”.
Why can’t DWP Ministers design a scheme that does not involve sending £200 to millions of people that are not entitled to it and then having to ask HMRC to recoup it sometime somehow? Why do they lack any ability to explain this cut in benefits in a friendly way? People who do not want to receive a benefit if they are not entitled to it have to take responsibility for paying it back. Why?
What is the cheapest way to keep the lights on? My IEA article
The government tells us that UK electricity prices are amongst the highest in the world because our electricity is priced from gas generated power on many days and this is now expensive. They claim that as we add more and more wind and solar to the grid, so the price of electricity will come down, replacing the dear gas generated energy. This has not happened so far, with our electricity prices climbing as we add large amounts of new renewable power. It also leaves open the question why the government does not change the pricing arrangements if the cause is as they describe. The result of days of shortage of wind when gas is a larger part of the mix and also pushing up the prices of every other type of generation could presumably be adjusted by different pricing methods.
How can I put this tactfully to the government? It is likely to be dearer to rely on increasing amounts of renewable power when you have to allow for all the capital and running costs of a duplicate back up system for when the wind does not blow. Whilst it is true that the costs of the gas fuel can be high when world markets are disrupted by wars, the costs of the windfarms do not stop with just the costs of putting in the turbines and blades. The investor in new facilities would need to find the high up front capital costs and the debt service. They would need to pay for maintenance and accept a shorter active life for the wind farm than for the gas power station. They would need to pay a gas power station to be on stand by for days when the wind did not blow. They would have to pay premium prices for the gas power when they did need to rely on a gas power station . It would have to charge more as it stands idle for long periods of time and so needs a higher price when it can run. By definition it is likely to run most when gas prices are dearest, as it runs when all else has failed in the system leaving us short of energy. It is true just building a new gas power station would also have a high capital cost and also have higher running costs as it needs to buy in gas. It is difficult for renewable power to be cheaper all the time there has to be a duplicate gas system on stand by as well.
The extra costs for the country do not end with the issue of capital cost and running costs of the different generators. The renewables system needs considerably more grid capacity. Much of the wind power is generated many miles away from the electricity consumers so the grid needs to be enlarged. In order to keep the system balanced when more renewables are destabilising the grid the operator needs to add expensive big investments to create inertia to avoid problems with system stability. They may need as a cheaper answer old gas power stations to keep spinning without the boiler. There are black outs if the system is driven outside its safe power ranges. It is true the country could move to battery or hydro storage of power, so the system can store electricity when there is plenty of wind and run down the stores when the wind drops. All this extra storage capacity has a capital cost. There are losses of electricity from storage and issues about how much storage is needed. The technology of long duration storage is still developing. A longish period of high pressure with little wind especially in a cold winter with high demand for power could stretch the system and would require major storage investment to be safe.
Gunpowder, treason and plot
One of the important continuities in British life is Bonfire night. I remember well the excitement as a young boy being allowed the stay up late to watch the fireworks. I enjoyed helping put together the bonfire pile. It was good when the heat came through from the flames on what was often a cold night.
The commemoration has often been a muddled very British one. The official reason for encouraging bonfire nights was to remind people of the dreadful terrorist crime Guy Fawkes proposed to commit, as he got ready to blow up Parliament. He wanted to kill the whole assembly of peers, MP s and the King himself as they gathered together in the Lords chamber for the state opening. He wanted to murder the whole governing establishment, clearing the way for a new King and Ministers. Burning Guys on thousands of bonfires around the land was to remind people of what could happen to such evil criminals.
For others Bonfire night can bring disparaging remarks about Parliament and government in the British tradition of challenges and jokes at the expense of authority, whilst not approving of mass murder. I have seen one civil fireworks where a mock up of Parliament itself was enveloped in flames rather than a representation of the plotter bomber.
I celebrate tonight Parliament’s survival thanks to vigilance and intelligence about the actions of the plotters. When I had to leave my room in the Grand Hotel Brighton following a bomb which did go off, we learned that most of the government escaped but five were dead. The wish to murder governments can still haunt our Parliament which needs to be vigilant both for those who would kill to replace a government and to uphold our precious liberties.