John Redwood's Diary
Incisive and topical campaigns and commentary on today's issues and tomorrow's problems. Promoted by John Redwood 152 Grosvenor Road SW1V 3JL

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.

The need to change the Fiscal framework. My IEA article

The UK fiscal framework
16 years ago the Coalition government with George Osborne as Chancellor set up a new architecture for UK budgets and economic management. The Bank of England was confirmed as setting the base rate of interest, making independent forecasts of the economy and inflation and regulating the financial stability of commercial banks.
The Treasury had to share information with a newly set up Office of Budget Responsibility who have the tasks of costing government policies and programmes and forecasting the impact of government measures and taxes on the economy, debt and deficit. From  the OBR’s work the government sets itself targets or Fiscal rules seeking to constrain deficits and to control the level of total state indebtedness. The OBR forecasts how well the government will do in relation to the Rules and usually concludes it will hit the targets.
The government sold this approach on the basis that so called “independent” bodies, the Bank and OBR, would ensure discipline so that the country could keep inflation to the target of 2% per annum, and could prevent excessive deficits and debts building up.
The system had some apparent success for the period 2010 to 2019 when government itself sought to keep spending and borrowing under reasonable control. A benign period in world trade with China greatly expanding her offers of cheaper goods helped keep inflation down globally so the Bank’s task was easier. Many western countries were knowingly or unwittingly restraining the growth in money and credit as they took a tough stance on commercial banks after the excesses of the banking crash of 2008. It was a period of disinflation after the big build up in money, debt and credit prior to 2007 allowed by lax bank regulation and poor Central banking in the West.
 In 2020 covid struck. The three main Western Central banks, the Fed, the European Central Bank and the Bank of England all embarked on creating large sums to buy bonds, driving interest rates down to new lows. As an initial response to the collapse of supply through lockdowns, this was helpful. All three continued with it for too long on too large a scale, triggering rapid rises in inflation by 2022. The Central banks blamed the price rises on the outbreak of the Ukraine war and its impact on energy and grain supplies.
The Swiss, Japanese and Chinese Central Banks that did not announce new policies to  greatly expand balance sheets to buy bonds and depress rates presided over low inflation throughout this period, showing that inflation was a choice wrongly made by the western Central Banks and governments.
No-one should be complacent about the dreadful loss of direction in  UK public finances and inflation since 2020. In every year of the last five years the Bank of England has turned a blind eye to inflation above its target. It allowed a peak inflation more than five times target.
The OBR and the derived rules to keep debt and deficits down have failed, with UK state debt now three times the level in 2010 and surging all this decade. The Conservative government of 2019-24 greatly boosted spending and borrowing to see the economy through the collapse of lock down for covid. It had started to rein in when it lost heavily in the election.  The incoming Labour government decided the outgoing government had not been spending, taxing and borrowing enough and made a large increase in all three in their first two years. The results are a runaway debt with interest charges now rising rapidly as the stock of debt increases and as older debt needs to be borrowed anew at much higher rates of interest. For two years running  now longer term government borrowing rates have been well above the worst day under Liz Truss.
The Bank of England sets itself up to fail by ignoring money and credit trends. The mis named Monetary Policy Committee tries to forecast the economy based on a view of how much UK capacity there is and how close to capacity the economy is running. If employment levels are high it expects higher wage settlements and seeks to offset it with higher interest rates to cool lending and activity. If unemployment is high it tends to want lower rates to act as a boost. This ignores the fact that the UK imports a lot, so world prices and wages are important for marginal purchases rather than depending on UK capacity. It ignores the way that extra money and credit can boost inflation even when too many people are unemployed or UK steel mills and car factories lack orders owing to UK costs and net zero policies.
The OBR is set up to fail because the Fiscal Rules set a target to see debt falling as a percentage of GDP only in the third year of the forecast, and to control the deficit only in the third year. The third year never comes as it is a rolling target revised each year as a new year is brought in. Government can comply without ever having to impose the spending cuts or extra taxes that are implied in Year 3 of the forecast.
So what should be done to give the UK a fiscal framework that would encourage low inflation and properly controlled debt? Both Bank and Treasury should be set the 2% inflation target, as government needs to do its bit to keep inflation down. Much of our current high inflation is caused by high public sector wage cost allied to poor public sector productivity. Both should also be set a 2% growth target to remind them that growth is a crucial aim and can help keep deficits and inflation under control. More investment can bring more efficient new capacity on stream. Faster growth reduces unemployment and boosts tax revenues.
Neither the OBR nor the Bank are independent bodies. The Bank needs permission to buy and sell bonds through the APF, receives Treasury payments to offset its huge losses (forecast by OBR to be £228 bn 2022-2033)  and has a Governor who reports to Parliament and is appointed by the government. The OBR works closely with the Treasury, is state funded and cannot become a critic of government policy. The Bank needs to put money and credit into its models and get better at forecasting and tackling latent inflation. The OBR needs to tell the government to introduce a control on debt and deficits that is more likely to work than the current failed 3 year out non targets. The big rise in debt is worrying and will eventually force a major change of policy when the debt becomes unaffordable.

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?”

Baroness Lloyd of Effra
(Lab)

“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

Preparation for the big give away to the EU.
The UK government should say Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed in its Re Set talks, to avoid being pressurised into conceding give aways without securing its objectives. There are rumours they have given away various concessions without securing a full deal.
Main topics
1 Surrender of £6 bn worth of fish quota over 12 years to 2038 to get talks. This is fish we could let UK boats land in the UK and process here.
2. Surrender to EU demand for a  discount on student fees for EU students at UK universities. Who pays, taxpayers or UK universities? Why should we allow such a big concession when earning overseas student fees is such a big part of UK university finance, supporting the best universities in Europe.
3. Higher carbon taxes putting up energy prices  will follow from  joining their emissions trading and carbon scheme.
4 Introducing a UK cbam ( a border tax on high energy content goods from non EU)  to align with EU tariffs on imports from non EU will  push up business costs leading to more industrial closures. Consumer prices will rise, as it is also a tax on UK consumers.
5.A big  increase in the cost  of student support by switching to the Erasmus scheme from Turing. Erasmus will cost £800 m compared to £120 m for Turing. We will be  paying  for many more EU students to benefit where Turing just helps UK students. Turing allows UK students to study  in many places around the world whilst Erasmus is EU institutions only.
6. A planned Youth Mobility scheme is part of the way to open borders, placing more strains on  housing and jobs in UK for young people. We are already short of homes and jobs without inviting more to come?
7. The planned SPS Agreement will prevent some of our advanced research and innovation in food and farming.
8 Regulatory alignment will burden the big majority of UK businesses that do not export with new costs and rules for no good reason.
9 AI linkage will stifle  our faster growth rate in tech by applying very restrictive EU rules to our faster growing and larger industry.
10 The proposed contribution to their solidarity fund and being made to pay the costs of their excessive regulations  faces UK taxpayers with a big bill they cannot afford. Shouldn’t the EU be paying us for trade as they sell us so much more than we sell them?
11 The trade changes are likely  to boost EU goods exports to us more than our exports to them, so reducing growth not boosting it. The government seems unaware we run a big deficit with them. It misses the point of their tariffs, rules and imposed costs that they are designed to get us to import from the EU rather than from better and cheaper suppliers from the rest of the world where these are available.
12 Linking more into their electricity system will  make us more dependent on continental power and drive up prices. We need more of our own capacity, not more links to a continent which it itself very short of energy.

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.

            The government beneath the gas soundbites is at last thinking through why the electricity price climbs as more renewables are added, and why there are new concerns about system stability. The Chancellor has said it makes no sense to add more renewables all the time there is a shortage of grid capacity to send the power to the customers. The Energy Minister has confirmed there is too much wind electricity generated in Scotland much of the time, leading the system to have to pay large sums to wind producers not to produce. They also have to pay large sums to gas generators in southern England where more of the power is needed to switch on  to see them over surges in demand or during periods of low wind. Last year £1.5bn was paid to level out wind and gas power to get the electricity to the right place. Some forecast this sum surging to £8bn  by 2030 as  we  become more dependent on wind.  The grid lacks pylons and power lines to bring enough of  the Scottish power south. It also needs to add inertia to its system to keep it stable, which requires investment in synchronous condensers and grid forming inverters,
              In the second quarter of 2026 the electricity supplied cost £333 out of a total bill of £875 for a typical household according to Ofgem. Transmission of the power and distribution to the home cost £199. The costs of balancing renewables and gas were £42 and the costs of low  carbon policies were £56. Vat added £42 and company profit £22. Other costs accounted for the rest. This reveals that the UK has chosen an expensive way of planning its energy transition. It still has an ageing grid with the need for updating to handle the renewables and to cope with higher overall demand. This will prove costly and may add another £200 to bills by 2030 if the work proceeds in a timely way.
             The UK has also foolishly decided to run down its own gas supplies, preventing new exploration and delaying production of proven reserves. As  result it has to import more LNG when it needs more gas to fuel its power stations. At times of world market stress and shortage this is particularly expensive. LNG is always likely to be dearer than piped gas from a local field owing to all the additional costs – and CO 2 generation – from  liquefying, cooling, transport and re gasifying the product. More local gas could be secured under long term contracts with some smoothing of spot price  market volatility.
             Ministers are desperately looking at all the items on a household bill to see what more they could do to try to reverse the remorseless upwards trend. They have been transferring some policy costs of transition to general taxation and have now begun to think about limiting the rise in payments to windfarms to abate their output. This in  turn leads to large extra spending on grid improvement and expansion, There  is a particular pinch point in getting excess wind energy out of Scotland heading south to the large markets of London and the south-east. Meanwhile previous generous guaranteed prices for wind and solar power keep average costs high and have led to the imposition of a windfall profits tax on those who benefit most from past unlimited prices.
            The price of domestic electricity is four time the price of gas based on the cost per kilowatt hour. Advocate of heat pumps say that their much greater efficiency can remove  the cost disadvantage. It does not remove most of it for electric heaters compared to gas boilers to heat a home. This has made people reluctant to switch from gas central heating to electricity, which in turn has avoided a big additional build up in power demand which the present electricity system could not accommodate without more grid. All the renewables come at a high total cost and will be dearer than the older fossil fuel generators who have to close their plants prematurely. All these renewables also come with  CO2 produced in the making of the turbines, solar panels and the shipping to bring them to the UK.
           It is good to see the government rethinking the speed and nature of the energy transition. They are learning the hard way that some of the policies adopted in the name of net zero increase  world CO 2 output, whilst failing to  lower UK electricity prices. They also need to be concerned about the loss of supply security with increasing dependence on  imports and with grid management issues with so much renewable interruptible power in the mix. Keeping the lights on should be their first duty.

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.