Mend the roof now the sun is starting to shine

There are suggestions in some places that now the economy is beginning to grow at a faster pace and confidence is picking up, we can somehow go easier on getting the budget deficit down. This would be a mistake.

Faster growth in the economy will accelerate the reduction in the deficit anyway because the economy will generate more tax revenue, and fewer people will be out of work claiming benefits. This effect will however be dampened where tax rates are not optimising revenue, and where many people coming into jobs from unemployment still receive substantial top up benefits in work.

An improving economy makes it easier to look for improvements to public service delivery at lower cost, as people know there are jobs available in the private sector where the public sector can no longer carry on recruiting as better ways of doing things are brought in.

The Conservative critique of Mr Brown’s approach in 2007 was correct. Near the top of the boom all state borrowing should have stopped. Today as we climb out of the Brown slump, we should continue to throttle back on state borrowing.

One way we need to examine is the issue of helping more people who live in the UK to take on the many new jobs that are becoming available. The government is seeking new powers to stop exploitation of labour coming in from abroad, and is wanting to limit benefit entitlement for EU migrants. More work on this will require a renegotiation of our relationship with the EU, but in the meantime when this Parliament has no majority for such action the government will see how far it can go within the current EU legal framework.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  1. Antisthenes
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 5:40 am | Permalink

    “will require a renegotiation of our relationship with the EU”

    Recognition at least from one politician (not surprising really as it is from Mr Redwood) that EU Laws and regulations gives UK governments very little room to enact legislation that the voting public would like. Most politicians rarely elude to this particular elephant in the room making policy pronouncements that they would follow if in government or already in it when even thought they must know that EU membership as it stands precludes doing so.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted June 9, 2014 at 7:09 am | Permalink

      Cameron has indicated that he does not even want to try to renegotiate the free movement of people within the EU.

      He clearly wants UK workers’ wages to be undercut in this way. Even though these low paid workers (or even benefit claimants) are clearly (in the main) going to be a large net cost to the public purse.

      • Hope
        Posted June 9, 2014 at 7:34 am | Permalink

        Mend the roof when the sun is shining? Four years in office treading water to change the Tory party and much social engineering to change our culture, customs, values and beliefs. Move over let someone else have a go, Cameron failed in every regard.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted June 9, 2014 at 9:25 am | Permalink

          If Cameron changed direction now (against all past performance & indications) he ditched his multiply broken compass and actually started “mending the roof” he would surely be doing it only to then benefit Labour.

          Unless he does a sensible UKIP deal quickly and purges the party of its Ken Clark wing, people like Maria Millar, John Major, Yeo and the dreadful Anna Soubry (“I always think he (Farage) looks like somebody has put their finger up his bottom and he really rather likes it”) wing.

          The problem is Cameron with his “heart and soul”, no greater Switzerland on Sea and “fruit cakes and closet racists” is surely a central part of this dreadful pro EU, greencrap, lefty wing.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted June 9, 2014 at 7:25 am | Permalink

      Indeed the continued Lib/lab/Con deception over the, elephant in the room, EU issue is why Clegg looked such a fool in the Farage TV Debate. Cameron however would look even worse, this as his position is much more duplicitous. He is Clegg in all his actions while pretending to be Farage when he speaks before elections.

      • David Price
        Posted June 10, 2014 at 7:00 am | Permalink

        So where is the UKIP plan for brexit? What is the strategy and detail that demonstrates they have thought through everything and prepared for all eventualities?

        Or are we simply to be told “trust us” by yet another group of untrustworthy and duplicitous politicians who dress in purple rather than blue, red or orange?

  2. Richard1
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 6:04 am | Permalink

    It is extraordinary the extent to which the Labour Party and a few leftwing economists such as Messrs Blanchflower, Stiglitz and Krugman and many others, have been proved completely wrong in their prognosis for the UK economy. The Govt could and should have moved faster to cut wasteful or useless spending, and still promote spending in useless areas, but the economic plan is working, contrary to the confident and derisive criticisms of ‘Keynesians’. Labour politicians are now reduced to saying ‘not everybody would agree their standard of living are rising etc’. You don’t say?! Can there ever have been a time when people didn’t find prices high and their pay too low? Generating noninflationary growth and getting the deficit right down is the only policy to deliver long term prosperity.

    By the way for its supporters, where are UKIP on this? UKIP is no longer a libertarian party, it now seems to have gone back on the flat tax policy and started to talk in Miliband like tones about protecting benefits. Their only policy is anti immigration. Good news if it means they take more votes from Labour, but let’s not pretend they are any kind of realistic alternative to the Conservatives.

    • Mark B
      Posted June 9, 2014 at 7:19 am | Permalink

      Try getting on the property ladder, rental or ownership, in London or the South East on the wages of some.

      • Richard1
        Posted June 9, 2014 at 9:01 am | Permalink

        Sorry, your point is?

        People have been complaining about property prices in London for as long as I can remember. I agree its difficult. The problem is supply and distortive govt policies, not immigration.

        • Iain Gill
          Posted June 9, 2014 at 10:16 am | Permalink

          Its the government manipulating both the housing market and the numbers of people who are resident in the country.

          A couple both on above average pay on a joint mortgage cannot afford the average house at the moment, so there is no logic to the high prices other than the belief that the government will continue to manipulate prices ever higher. No government can do that past extreme levels for too long, although the current lot are certainly trying.

          • Hope
            Posted June 9, 2014 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

            Richard you need to read a little more and you will easily find other polices for UKIP.

        • Bob
          Posted June 9, 2014 at 10:41 am | Permalink


          “The problem is supply and distortive govt policies, not immigration.”

          Yes of course, how could uncontrolled EU immigration possibly effect house prices?
          BTW, which of your party’s “distortive” policies do you blame the most for the problem?

          Failure to concrete over the Green Belt?
          Help to buy? or do you think they should speed up the construction of affordable housing blocks on a massive scale across the suburbs?

          • Richard1
            Posted June 9, 2014 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

            There is loads of available brownfield land. The planning process in the UK is a nightmare. Mich more could be done to ease supply. You are right that immigration is an issue as long as supply is constrained as it is.

          • APL
            Posted June 10, 2014 at 7:52 am | Permalink

            Richard1: “There is loads of available brownfield land. ”

            You mean land that once housed manufacturing capacity conveniently within city limits, which you would now like to be paved over with new box estates?

        • Mark B
          Posted June 9, 2014 at 1:26 pm | Permalink

          Richard1 said;
          “Sorry, your point is?”

          Thanks Ian, thanks Bob. :o)

      • libertarian
        Posted June 9, 2014 at 10:21 am | Permalink

        Mark B

        Yeh I tried buying a London flat in 1978 and couldn’t afford it, my Mum & Dad moved out of London to buy their first home in the late 1950’s as they couldn’t afford London, Its called supply and demand. Rather than insist that you have a millionaire lifestyle on a minimum wage work ethic why not start somewhere cheaper ( there are plenty of cheaper places in the South East ) and work your way up to affording London prices. Or better still work your way up and still DON’T buy somewhere in London and be even better off

        • Mark B
          Posted June 9, 2014 at 1:32 pm | Permalink

          I think you are confusing me with someone else.

          I was speaking for those who may not posses the means and have to go and live further out because, as you so rightly said, its down to supply and demand.

          The thing is, what’s crating the excessive demand where, in London and the South East, house prices, AND RENTS, are rising yet, elsewhere in the country they are not.

          Is this sustainable ? Remember, a home is to live in and not something that should form part of a personal financial portfolio.

          • libertarian
            Posted June 9, 2014 at 5:14 pm | Permalink

            Mark B

            Not I’m not confusing you with someone else. I’m telling you its always been like that in London. Yeh its a problem , yes it always will be its supply and demand as I said. There isn’t a solution that doesn’t involve people who can’t afford it moving out of London

          • Anonymous
            Posted June 9, 2014 at 6:45 pm | Permalink


            No. It hasn’t always been like that in London where I was born and raised and lived for most of my adult life.

            When I first bought in the suburbs in the ’90s I had a £15k deposit and three times my salary mortgage to get a three bed.

            To get the same three bed with a deposit in similar proportion would take £110k down payment and nearly six times my salary – and that’s after promotions !

            In order to work out how overpriced houses are divide their market price by their yearly rental value. Anything over 16 is over valued. In my area (well away from London) the multiple is 21. Around 30% higher than it should be.

          • Anonymous
            Posted June 9, 2014 at 7:01 pm | Permalink

            Further to that, Libertarian,

            My monthly repayments on my old house would be £1770 pcm to buy again on a mortgage right up to my retirement date using the equity I could take from my present home.

            In short I couldn’t possibly afford to live there again on my middle professional’s salary.

          • David Price
            Posted June 10, 2014 at 6:42 am | Permalink

            I agree with libertarian on this, private housing has always been expensive in London and surroundings. I could just about afford a flat in Crystal Palace in 1978 and certainly not a house. We had to move 40+ miles out of London to buy a small house when we needed one and could only just afford that.

            So nothing has changed significantly in 40 years, London always has been a target for immigration.

            BTW, you may believe a house is not an investment but others clearly do and if UKIP is truly a libertarian party then shouldn’t it accept and support both views.

            Perhaps UKIP should have the building of skyscrapers as it’s new immigration mitigation policy in it’s manifesto.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted June 9, 2014 at 7:30 am | Permalink

      UKIP are not anti immigration they are just anti open borders for all the EU regardless of merit. They want the immigration of skilled, self funding, workers that we actually need, from all over the World on a points based system. Be they Canadian, American, Australian or Indian or from the EU.

      Rather than the current EU only and clearly racist approach to the issue.

      • Richard1
        Posted June 9, 2014 at 3:00 pm | Permalink

        Yes that policy would make sense, although UKIP rhetoric currently is anti immigration full stop. Also they have dropped many of their other sensible policies such as a flat tax and spending cuts. Are they even still against green crap? Perhaps they are going for the Labour vote.

        • Bob
          Posted June 9, 2014 at 5:31 pm | Permalink


          UKIP want managed immigration.

          What’s wrong with that?

        • Anonymous
          Posted June 9, 2014 at 6:47 pm | Permalink

          Richard – No. The rhetoric isn’t anti immigration. That’s the lie being pedaled by nearly all agencies outside of UKIP.

        • Hope
          Posted June 10, 2014 at 7:30 am | Permalink

          No it is not. You are completely wrong.

      • David Price
        Posted June 10, 2014 at 6:55 am | Permalink

        It is not at all clear what UKIP are promising. While a points based system as practised by other anglospehere nations would be sensible the material on their website has no mention at all of a points based approach.

        What it does say is that immigrants should have a job, carry their own medical insurance and would have no NHS or welfare cover for 5 years. This would not prevent loss of jobs at any level by any UK native just denial of welfare. The question is how significant a difference this would be to the current situation.

    • Peter Davies
      Posted June 9, 2014 at 12:05 pm | Permalink

      If you cornered Mr Blanchflower on this issue he twist it round and angrily deny what he said – he’s clearly on of those in total denial, something like this happened with a Sky reporter.

      I seem to remember reading something that he wrote about monetaty policy

      – if you were a student of his and you disagreed with what he said he would throw you out of his classroom. We have people like this teaching future leaders and economists, Says it all really…..

      • Richard1
        Posted June 9, 2014 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

        If this story is true no wonder blanchflower was Gordon Brown’s favorite economist! These leftist economists are as bad news for prosperity as environmentalists. Often their supporters are of course the same.

    • lojolondon
      Posted June 9, 2014 at 12:20 pm | Permalink

      Richard, UKIP is not an “anti-immigration” party, it is primarily a “pro-democracy” party, they want the UK to be ruled by accountable representatives, not 28 people in a darkened room in Brussels.

      Of course, admitting that is to admit that the other party leaders are all pro the status quo, so party leaders and the MSM keep emphasising the immigration issue to stigmatize the party as racists/bigots, a-la Gordon Brown. Note that the Eurosceptic portion of the Conservative party receive the same treatment.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted June 10, 2014 at 4:23 am | Permalink

        Indeed the racism taunts are a pathetic attempt to avoid having to debate the real issues. Cameron could not debate Farage as he would look even dafter than Clegg did.

    • acorn
      Posted June 9, 2014 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

      It’s you that has got it completely wrong Richard. Even Osborne discovered he had got it wrong. The government is supposed to be “borrowing” £37 billion this year and zero next year which, by the way, is looking more like £50 billion more than “Plan A” prescribed originally.

      In fact, government borrowing is near enough on target with Alistair Darlings plan. Thankfully, Osborne took wiser counsel, didn’t listen to you or JR . .

      Balanced Budget year has shifted from 2015 to 2017 and now to 2019 (thankyou Lord). It always happens; three years into a slash and burn the public sector plan, a Conservative Chancellor suddenly realizes that when the public sector stops spending during a recession, the economy slows down. I would hate to think what the state of the UK economy would be today, had Osborne taken circa £120 billion more spending power out of the economy, as his Plan A intended.

      The OBR says: “By the end of the forecast period, we expect the government’s deficit to have returned to balance as the fiscal consolidation continues […] . The household and corporate sectors provide the majority of the offsetting change, with household net lending moving from a deficit of 1.2 per cent of GDP in 2014 to a larger deficit of 3.7 per cent of GDP in 2018 and corporate net lending moving from a surplus of 4.0 per cent of GDP in 2014 to a surplus of 2.0 per cent of GDP in 2018. After an initial improvement, we do not expect the current account deficit to narrow significantly over the rest of the forecast period, so the external sector plays little role in offsetting the fiscal consolidation after 2014.”

      So by 2019, Household debt levels will have to be similar to those they had in 2008, inorder for Osbo’ to balance his budget whilst still having a trade deficit. Please remember that the first three years of every slash and burn the public sector Conservative Chancellor are always the worst. So you could either move to Greece or stay in the UK and have a similar lifestyle that needs less sun tan cream.

      • Richard1
        Posted June 9, 2014 at 3:04 pm | Permalink

        It has taken even longer to recover from the Brown slump than had been anticipated, mainly because of the eurozone disaster. Osborne could and should have moved faster. But adopting the Welfare Party’s tax borrow and spend policies would have dug us further into the hole.

        • acorn
          Posted June 9, 2014 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

          JR; could possibly tell me what percentage of right wing nutters, do you discard when you moderate this site?

          • Richard1
            Posted June 10, 2014 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

            So that means you don’t have a coherent argument?

          • Edward2
            Posted June 12, 2014 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

            I would guess it is similar to the number of left wing “nutters”
            PS You should know that this word is not PC acorn.

      • acorn
        Posted June 9, 2014 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

        BTW. I don’t know if this is down to Governor Carney, but the BoE Quarterly Bulletin is turning into a good read for kids doing Economics. It is also getting significantly heterodox, MMT style. It has a playlist of videos to go with it at . No 3, “Money creation in the modern economy” is bordering on heresy!

        Politicians would have you believe that the government is like a household with similar accounting requirements, like having to borrow money and pay it off; spending more than they earn and ending up with more debt. Having to balance the family budget. If you are a currency USER that is exactly what you have to do, because you are using someone else’s money. Everyone in the Eurozone is using someone else’s money, including the Germans.

        If you are a government that ISSUES its own fiat currency, then you live in a totally different world. Everyone who works for the BoE; Commercial Bank or in Financial Assets Trading, knows how the system really works. They have to pretend it works like the politicians tell you its works, but don’t tell anyone I told you, it’s a secret.

        • Edward2
          Posted June 9, 2014 at 6:21 pm | Permalink

          I think it is the belief by some economists that governments can just magic themselves money into existence without repercussions that has us in the bind we are in.
          In Euroland we have low growth, huge national debts, high unemployment and soon negative interest rates with deflation.

          I think it it the size of the State sucking money out of the real productive wealth creating sector of the economy which is causing these problems.
          Your logic seems to be the more the State spends the wealthier we all will be.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted June 9, 2014 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

      Look at all the MPs like Cameron, economist (and dopes at the BBC) that come out of Oxford PPE and similar with the usual big state, quack green, pro EU & the magic government money tree economics fairy story, embedded in their soft brains.

      • qubus
        Posted June 9, 2014 at 8:04 pm | Permalink

        BTW, did you know that PPE is perhaps the least-demanding course on offer?

    • ubus
      Posted June 9, 2014 at 7:13 pm | Permalink

      I don’t imagine that Ukip have a policy on this … Nor do they need to. Since no one, not even the most optimistic Ukiper, believes that they have a chance to form the next government, it would be a complete waste of time to produce a full manifesto. It is only Imposters like the LibDems who do such things, knowing full well, that there is virtually no chance of them being in a position to implement it.

      • Anonymous
        Posted June 10, 2014 at 4:21 pm | Permalink

        Ubus – Like the main stream party’s manifestos count for anything after election ?

  3. alan jutson,
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 6:07 am | Permalink

    Agreed, if we do not pay down the debt in times of so called plenty (for some) then we simply go backwards further into debt again when so called normal times return.

    I certainly agree we simply have to do something about the massive importing of labour from abroad, given it would seem that at present we are not able to restrict immigration from the EU by closing the gates.

    Companies need to realise that they need to train people if they want skilled staff, and our education system needs to be fit for purpose, that purpose being to provide pupils with an interest and ability to be positive about learning for work.

    Afraid I am rather sceptical about real growth figures , given that simply importing people who work will automatically raise so called total GDP by that same percentage if they all work.
    Thus it does not mean we are more efficient, or GDP per person has increased.

    Certainly agree the government has to incentivise more people to work who can work, rather than allow them to simply take money for ever for doing nothing.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted June 9, 2014 at 9:29 am | Permalink

      The trouble with companies training people at the companies expense is they often leave and work for the competition or these companies are undercut by companies that do not do their own training.

      People need to pay for their own training perhaps with some soft loan assistance it is they who get the benefit of the training often, not the company that trained them.

      • Iain Gill
        Posted June 9, 2014 at 10:19 am | Permalink

        Good companies that look after their staff, and train them, have a happier workforce and tend to do better in general. Except when they are massively undercut by competitors bringing in cheap imported staff from abroad through government lack of will to enforce proper border controls.

        • livelogic
          Posted June 9, 2014 at 12:59 pm | Permalink

          But they will be undercut by such competitors and will then ultimately go out of business or get bought out by someone who does less training and has a lower cost base.

          • Iain Gill
            Posted June 9, 2014 at 4:57 pm | Permalink

            Yes that’s what is happening. The more the government allows cheap foreign staff to come in and undercut the native workforce the more locals end up unemployed, and the more patriotic businesses fold. We have to protect our borders much more effectively otherwise we will end up a third world country. This is precisely why the real people are concerned about immigration levels.

          • Bazman
            Posted June 14, 2014 at 7:37 pm | Permalink

            This attitude was taken by many companies in the 90’s and now there is a lack of skills in general. How do you think the new Trident is going to be built due to this? BAE Systems are looking, as they say ” A mass of welders” Many welders have paid for their own qualifications, but they now do not work for shipyard wages and Foreign nationals are not allowed in due to absurd and pointless security restrictions as you no doubt see it. They are in a race to train apprentices and get back the workforce they made redundant in the 90’s. However if you saw large wages paid then there would be no skills shortage. Square that one off with your simplicity.

      • alan jutson,
        Posted June 9, 2014 at 11:40 am | Permalink


        I agree some trained people will always leave, but then why do the Companies who have invested in some training then not see the light and pay them a competitive/good rate when they are qualified.

        Good people are always worth paying for.

        In addition.
        Nothing wrong in having a contract which says, we train you for 3-5 years but you must work for another 3 for us (at an agreed rate) after training, with penalties for both sides if the agreement is broken.

        I had such an agreement with my 5 year fully indentured apprenticeship 50 years ago.
        My Parents had to co sign the agreement as well as myself and the Company..

        Loyalty should work both ways, yes I know its old fashioned, but it pays to keep talented people and not let them escape to so called greener pastures, which then often fail to match up to expectations.

        • livelogic
          Posted June 9, 2014 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

          Such contracts are not enforceable they might even come under slavery and bonded workers!

          “why do the Companies who have invested in some training then not see the light and pay them a competitive/good rate when they are qualified”

          Simple if they do they either go out of business due to lower cost competition and dwindling sales or just get bought out.

          • alan jutson,
            Posted June 9, 2014 at 7:08 pm | Permalink


            Sorry I do not understand your logic here.

            I can see absolutely nothing wrong with a simple contract of terms and conditions.
            All contracts have terms and conditions which both parties agree to recognise, otherwise they do not accept the job and do not get trained.

            Those paying power wages usually get less skilled people, thus work is often not completed to a high standard which makes it more difficult to get paid at the end of the job,

            Those who pay a little more to their workers usually (but not always) get more experienced staff etc, etc.

        • Qubus
          Posted June 9, 2014 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

          OK, I agree. So why don’t we say to medical students ” we will admit you to medical school, but on the condition that you work, full-time for the NHS for a minimum of five years? That should help to solve the health crisis that this country is experiencing.

          • Lifelogic
            Posted June 14, 2014 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

            The courts would simply not enforce it or be powerless to do so. If the trained person just goes off to America or somewhere what can you do about it in practice.

            The agreement is worthless from the employers point of view.

        • Bazman
          Posted June 14, 2014 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

          Getting made redundant at the end of the apprenticeship is the main fear. As for loyalty when you are made redundant how loyal are you? Should you feel obliged to go back twenty years later?

      • David Price
        Posted June 10, 2014 at 7:22 am | Permalink

        Make sure you state your policy clearly in all job adverts, it will make things easier for the competition.

  4. Timaction
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 6:15 am | Permalink

    ………….The government is seeking new powers to stop exploitation of labour coming in from abroad, and is wanting to limit benefit entitlement for EU migrants. More work on this will require a renegotiation of our relationship with the EU……………..

    After 4 years and the exposure and realisation that we are ruled by the EU. Same as the reform of the Human Rights stuff, immigration promises etc etc. All talk.
    This and previous Governments simply don’t put Britain and the British first. More EU and foreign aid is needed!

    • Lifelogic
      Posted June 9, 2014 at 9:33 am | Permalink

      Compensation for uninsured criminals, injured in accidents, while engaged a criminal pursuit and trying to get away from the police now I see – all thank to ECHR, the HRA and Cameron inaction.

  5. Mike Stallard
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 6:18 am | Permalink

    1. It is costing the country as much as defence. If the bond prices alter, that could go up very fast and overtake, say, the amount spent on education.
    2. It is depressing interest rates. This means that people like me are losing money on interest. We look everywhere for somewhere to invest so – hey – what about housing? And that has an effect on prices.
    3. It encourages by example. There is, apparently, a lot of personal debt in the country at the moment. Some people are talking of billions of pounds. In our town we have a loan company in the market place.
    4. QE as an answer is, surely, courting inflation? I am not sure how inflation happens – but sometimes isn’t it rather like a lion springing out of the bush? (Zimbabwe, Turkey, Argentina.)

    In the short term – OK. But how can you stop debt, isn’t it rather like smoking or drinking or drugging?

  6. Mark B
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 6:26 am | Permalink

    You keep banging on about this renegotiation meme in the hope that we will just simply roll over and start believing in it.

    Or your just towing the Party Political line in the hope of better weather for your own career prospects. No shame in that, you are a politician after all.

    There is only one way to stop people from both the EU and non-EU countries coming here and claiming benefits. And that is, to end the benefits system. Which I am sure we all know, would be political suicide, both individually and party politically, yet this has to be at some point considered. You cannot have open door MASS-immigration and a welfare system. One, or the other, has to go.

    We have signed up to agreements which, allow EU Citizens equal rights to UK one’s, so there is no way powers can be reduced, not even renegotiated as Barroso and Merkel have stated.

    • Hope
      Posted June 9, 2014 at 7:48 am | Permalink

      No Mark, in some respects EU citizens have better rights than UK ones. For example, child benefit can be sent to Poland while stopping UK citizens from having it. Tuition fees tripled for UK citizens while EU citizens receive free tuition at some of our top universities. I think all signs not written in English should be taken down, how can this help encourage people to become inclusive to our society? I thought Pickles was doing something about improving integration or will this be after the next election?

      We have read segregation taking place at universities, now have Trojan Horse where segregation takes place at school. Headdress not acceptable in some public buildings ie court, schools, airports, banks and hospitals. When will the Government actually do something? There would be a public inquiry if it were the other way around. We had the newspaper report at the weekend that Ofsted have a criticised a Devon primary school for not being too white not multicultural. The head is sending the children to London for a school trip! The lefty public sector state think that racism only can happen when white people or UK citizens are the perpetrators of inappropriate behaviour.

      • alan jutson,
        Posted June 9, 2014 at 11:42 am | Permalink



        So called Political correctness gone mad.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted June 9, 2014 at 2:31 pm | Permalink

        All this tax and these 50% overpaid/pensioned state sector workers yet today the Telegraph reports that half a million holiday makers may not get a passport in time (nor even a holiday one assumes) as it takes the government up to 2 months to stick a small chip and a photo on a bit of cardboard!

        Horrid purple cardboard it is too.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted June 9, 2014 at 8:01 am | Permalink

      Well, a significant section of the population is willing to believe that Cameron would be able to negotiate with the EU and extract major concessions to make continued EU membership acceptable. Moreover from opinion polls it seems that about a seventh of the electorate would be prepared to take his word for it that he had achieved this. So in fact this is a very effective line in terms of swinging more support behind the Tory party. You and I and others may think that it’s a load of tosh, even Cameron himself may think that it’s a load of tosh, but for many of those who take a more cursory interest in such matters it may seem a reasonable proposal and they would be prepared to give him the chance to try it.

      • APL
        Posted June 9, 2014 at 10:28 am | Permalink

        Denis: “You and I and others may think that it’s a load of tosh, even Cameron himself may think that it’s a load of tosh, but for many of those who take a more cursory interest .. ”

        Yes. This is the saddest thing about the supposed democracy in the UK today. We have respectable, capable men like Redwood reduced to trotting out the inane party line, rather than tell the truth.

        I think Redwood is an honest man, so he must find it difficult to have to dribble this rubbish out all the time.

      • Mark B
        Posted June 9, 2014 at 1:46 pm | Permalink

        Dennis Cooper wrote;

        ” . . . opinion polls it seems that about a seventh of the electorate would be prepared to take his word for it . . . “

        BLOODY FOOLS !

  7. Lifelogic
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 6:28 am | Permalink

    This government cannot even bring itself to scrap HS2 nor the damaging green subsidies. There is huge waste in nearly all government expenditure, much overpayment of state sector staff (150% of others) and endless things being done that do actual positive harm.

    How many £millions did just the queens speech cost? All just to read out a page of A4 government propaganda and catch phrases in front of lots of thousands of overpaid state sector staff/horses/guards etc. in expensive fancy dress with complete sets of cutlery stitched to them. Could they not do these fancy dress parties at their own expense in their own time. Perhaps at Ascot or similar.

    We have some tax rates way above even maximum tax raising rates. They should actually be fixed far lower than this (at maximum good for voters and the economy rates).

    As bad as the high rates is the absurd complexity and the total failure to tax fairly. The complexity often causes more administration costs and damage to companies than the tax actually payable. The GAAR General Anti-Abuse Rule is an appallingly damaging & random tax that will deters investment hugely. The failure to tax properly the likes of Starbucks and Amazon properly allows unfair tax competition with smaller solely UK based cafes and other retail shops and mail order.

    The vital thing to do is stop pissing taxes down the drain on complete nonsense, but the government have done virtually nothing on this. Only when they do can the UK become more competitive and get some real growth.

    In the mean time get some real competition in banking, lower simpler taxes, abolish GAAR & IHT, get fracking and get some cheap energy flowing.

    Cameron alas threw the last election, went into a duff one way deal with the Libdems and has delivered nothing but Libdem policies that are wrong in nearly every important issue.
    They are against cheap energy, want to over regulate everything, want higher taxes, wanat daft employment laws, are anti business (in the Vince Cable manner) and want more EU. Cameron seems to me to be just the same, a big state, career politician with no real beliefs or principals, he is clearly just in the wrong party.

    299+ tax increase from this shower so far plus GAAR and yet he has the temerity to say, via the Queen’s mouth, “My government will also continue to cut taxes in order to increase people’s financial security.” “Continue” how daft does he think voters are?

    Surely this is total hypocrisy & contempt for voters of the first order or have I missed something?

    • Lifelogic
      Posted June 9, 2014 at 6:31 am | Permalink

      If he is to “continue” he could start by de-ratting on the £1M IHT promise.

      • Hope
        Posted June 9, 2014 at 7:30 am | Permalink

        LL, you are spot on. It is called an electioneering Con. All jam tomorrow guff. Look at Cameron’s record and ask, would you believe a word he says? The cartel are arguing to present EU law, policy and regulation with a little leeway that the EU can oversee.

        Look at the Trojan Horse report out today, the language is a very careful but it is racism against non Muslims. The action being proposed is pitiful. Four years ago we were promised better education and it was heralded as a flagship policy. Welfare was reported to be in chaos on the day of the European elections to bury bad news, again, a flagship policy. Structural deficit cleared by 2015 , no hope. Immigration increasing and The Cartel cannot stop the quantity or quality of those coming here from the EU. Let us not talk about net immigration, but about gross immigration and the quality of people being allowed in.

        A bit of clue with most policies Cameron cannot guarantee the security or safety of our nation despite his big brother approach of state press regulation, raising people’ s bank accounts and tapping computers and phones without any legal safeguard.

        He will be remembered for gay marriage as a flagship policy and his anti Christain stance of forbidding wearing the cross in the work place. No wonder extremism is rife with him at the helm!

        I have every respect for JR as a true Tory, but the blog is in the realms of fairy stories.

      • Leslie Singleton
        Posted June 9, 2014 at 8:36 am | Permalink

        Lifelogic–I heard somebody on a News-type discussion yesterday (on way back down from Scotland) saying that IHT had to be increased “to pay for the NHS”

        • Leslie Singleton
          Posted June 9, 2014 at 8:43 am | Permalink

          Postscript–Remember Labour is gr8 till it runs out of somebody else’s money

          • Lifelogic
            Posted June 9, 2014 at 9:40 am | Permalink

            Tories are just the same.

        • Lifelogic
          Posted June 9, 2014 at 9:37 am | Permalink

          The best way to pay for the NHS is for people to pay as they use it and insure themselves should they wish too. Just a basic safely net for those who genuinely cannot pay. Then get some real competition in the health sector.
          This instead of the “free at the point of rationing and non provision” as currently.

          • livelogic
            Posted June 9, 2014 at 1:09 pm | Permalink

            Re. The NHS – I would not pay for my own children or family to have homeopathy, acupuncture, breast enlargements or quack medicines, so why should I be forced to pay for others to have this nonsense at my expense?

            Let them pay themselves!

          • Bazman
            Posted June 14, 2014 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

            Who could afford the insurance fees on minimum wage or even average wages? Road tolls, health insurance, mortgage/rent, training. All out of 20k a year or less. Deluded nonsense.

  8. Andyvan
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 6:33 am | Permalink

    Whilst it is probably true that we are in an engineered pre election pseudo boom the idea that this somehow makes it easier to makes it easier “to look for improvements to public service delivery at lower cost” makes no sense. If anything a slight improvement in tax receipts makes it likely that the public sector will resist change more not less. In any case if this were a real improvement in the economy the government would not still be running a catastrophically high deficit nor would it be dependent on money printing and artificially low interest rates to keep going. Never in history has the cliché “lies, damned lies and government statistics” been more apt.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted June 9, 2014 at 7:05 am | Permalink

      the house price bubble is completely out of hand.

      the Conservatives claim to want more home ownership but they are pushing prices to ever more silly levels.

      this is causing lots of damage to this country.

      • zorro
        Posted June 9, 2014 at 9:57 am | Permalink

        They are you using the mortgage rules to try and stifle activity, but it is just increasing bureaucracy ridiculously and making it difficult for reasonable prospects to get a mortgage on a property…… From liar loans to lala land loans!

        All in order to protect their investments and stop the house prices finding their real market valley without subsidies. The government is not seriously addressing the lack off property for families to live in.


        • livelogic
          Posted June 9, 2014 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

          Indeed people all over are struggling to get perfectly sensible mortgages through due to regulation lunacy.

          • Bazman
            Posted June 14, 2014 at 7:43 pm | Permalink

            No problem with pay rent though.

  9. David Cockburn
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 7:18 am | Permalink

    I agree with the idea of preparing now to fix the roof as the sun begins to shine.
    Perhaps the Chancellor could now lay out a 10 year programme for paying down the debts incurred over the last 10 years.

    • Iain Gill
      Posted June 9, 2014 at 7:29 am | Permalink

      Its not a lack of plans that is the problem, its the lack of delivery against those plans. And probably a lack of honesty, one plan for public consumption and another plan for what they plan to do behind closed doors.

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted June 9, 2014 at 10:08 am | Permalink

      No hope – he is still borrowing £100bn per annum and the interest on the ever-increasing debt has risen to £1bn per week!

  10. margaret brandreth-j
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 7:59 am | Permalink

    So we are not making hay just yet!
    There is not only a problem with cheap overseas labour ; we also have to realise that whilst prices in many aspects of daily life are going up, salaries , wages are not , This will also slow down the boost . As we tighten up purses some businesses will suffer.
    I do not agree that the private sector has better ways of doing things , but there is always a first time , better to be optimistic.

  11. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 8:05 am | Permalink

    “We will safeguard Britain’s credit rating with a credible plan to eliminate the bulk of the structural deficit over a Parliament ” – Conservative manifesto 2010.
    Last I heard Osborne was still borrowing £100bn per annum and yet you tell us : ” There are suggestions in some places that now the economy is beginning to grow at a faster pace and confidence is picking up, we can somehow go easier on getting the budget deficit down.” Britain’s budget deficit remains one of the largest in the developed world. Your party’s manifesto put government debt at £952bn in 2010 what is it today – £1.3bn? The Telegraph reported on 22 May 2014: “The interest on Britain’s debt pile is expected to hit £52.1bn this year, according to projections by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) – or the equivalent of £1bn a week.” Debt interest according to your 2010 manifesto was £42bn per annum. These are the results of Osborne’s 4 years in charge of the nation’s finances.

  12. Neil craig
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 8:17 am | Permalink

    The important issue isgrowth. As John says with growth the deficit proportionately declines and is much easier to pay off.

    No point in repeating how we can achieve growth several times faster than currently, since there is no dispute it is possible – and does not involve printing money..

  13. Denis Cooper
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 8:30 am | Permalink

    Firstly there is an economic cycle and it would have been astonishing if the UK economy had not started to recover by now. The government is claiming that this natural recovery is being brought about by its “long term economic plan”, whatever that may be even if it exists beyond a list of aspirations without any detail of how they could be realised. The fact is that the government is still running a substantial budget deficit and getting deeper and deeper into debt, all of which debt including the £375 billion owed to the Bank of England will have to be repaid at some point despite theories to the contrary. It seems quite likely that we will be into the next economic downturn before the government has even eliminated its budget deficit and started to run a surplus so that it could begin to pay down its accumulated debt, let alone made any substantial progress in doing that, and so then it would be poorly placed to cope with that next recession. In other words so far the mending of the roof has been restricted to slowing its deterioration and the next time it rains it will still leak, and leak even more badly than before.

  14. Bert Young
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 8:39 am | Permalink

    I don’t believe that any renegotiation with the EU will have any influence on the development and expansion of our industry . Effective products are dependent on the quality , uniqueness and price ; the marketing of the products will reflect on our relationship with other countries and their companies ; since the world markets are now honed into competition , our record of supplying and quality will be the influencing feature of success or failure . We must be open to all challenges and not be constrained by any outside forces ; we have to put the political EU to one side . Yesterday your blog highlighted the basic driving force of the cost of energy and how important it was to the growth opportunity we face ; nothing should now get in the way of going forward .

    • Mark B
      Posted June 9, 2014 at 2:01 pm | Permalink

      ” . . . nothing should now get in the way of going forward .”

      I agree but . . .

      And until we regain FULL sovereignty and are able to make our own decisions, we will never be able to, go forward, as you put it.

  15. Denis Cooper
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 9:03 am | Permalink

    Secondly it is doubtful that the governing parties, in particular the Tories, will reap as much electoral benefit from the economic recovery as they may hope. The last opinion poll I saw had the population divided roughly equally three ways between those who blame the last government for the fall in living standards, those who blame the present government, and those who blame both. This is of course absurd, but it reflects what happened in 2009 when the Tory party failed to hammer home to the electorate the sheer magnitude of the government’s financial problems and especially the fact that Labour was resorting to the cunning device of QE to make sure that it didn’t run out of money to pay its bills during that year leading up to the general election. As I have said before this failure during 2009 was probably the biggest single reason why the Tories did not get an overall majority at that election, and bearing in mind that the LibDems were then put in a position where they could block the boundary changes the Tories wanted they may well not get an overall majority at the next general election either. Tory propagandists jump on opinion polls showing that Labour and the Tories are neck-and-neck but forget to mention that the Tories were 7% ahead of Labour in 2010 and that was still not enough to get an overall majority; they then go quiet when other opinion polls show that the gap between Labour and the Tories is not closing as quickly as they will need to be 7% ahead next May; moreover they refuse to recognise the likelihood that recently it has been UKIP, not their party, which has been pulling Labour down, and pulling it down faster than it has been pulling down the Tories, as shown on these useful charts:

    Previously there were three factors working against the Tories: the collapse of support for the LibDems and the consequent consolidation of the leftish anti-Tory vote on just one party, Labour; the denial of the boundary changes by the LibDems; and the rise of UKIP eroding Tory support more than Labour support; but now that third factor, always the smallest, seems to have peaked and is even beginning to work the other way.

  16. Peter Richmond
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 9:27 am | Permalink

    I see Dan Hannan in his latest post is suggesting that all who are put forward for President of the European Commission will support ‘ever closer union’. So in his opinion it does not matter who occupies the post. He suggests therefore that Mr Cameron ought to look at the possibility of doing a deal with Mr Junker that gives the UK the same status of the Swiss or Norwegians. What is your opinion of this Mr Redwood?

    • livelogic
      Posted June 9, 2014 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

      Cameron is not very good at doing good deals his heart and soul is not in it. True they candidate are all virtually the same that is why they are candidates.

    • Mark B
      Posted June 9, 2014 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

      Ever closer union is a central strand running right through the EU’s DNA. And all Commissioners take an oath to serve the interests of the EU, and no other, even when out of office.

      So it does not matter whether or not they are very pro-integrationalist or mildly integrationalist, they’re all the the same, and cannot be anything else.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted June 9, 2014 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

        There’s the oath to serve the EU, but there’s also the simple but generally overlooked legal fact that if Cameron wanted treaty changes they would not be in the gift of the President of the Commission. The treaties belong to the sovereign member states and they have the decisive word on any changes to those treaties; the worst that a hostile Commission President could do would be to try to obstruct and delay the process of treaty change, while the best that a sympathetic Commission President could do would be to try to ease it along. Getting the governments of 27 other countries to agree to the kind of treaty changes Cameron says he wants would be the real and probably insurmountable obstacle, irrespective of who becomes the President of the Commission.

  17. Ex-expat Colin
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 9:41 am | Permalink

    “More work on this will require a renegotiation of our relationship with the EU, but in the meantime when this Parliament has no majority for such action the government will see how far it can go within the current EU legal framework”.

    Bit like a job advert…more of the same old, same old. Achieve little or mark time/ loose a lot.

    Framework….something seriously expensive and not working. I feel that was the intention often….the very expensive bit. Money in = major borrowed money loss out. How many times do we have to loose?

    If both the Libs and the EU were removed perhaps we could move on to recover prosperity (low/no debt) that Thatcher kicked off – without awkward framework(s). Not going to happen though with another Coalition on the near horizon or worse…Labour!

    Education, Training, Experience. When will the first two be fixed to allow the third to be…..experienced? Having a problem with multiculturalism/integration theories at the top end are we? Get them when they’re young…yes indeed!

    The management failure gets ever deeper. And here we are in the so called high technology/new thinking age. Tech to a degree – yes…Thinking – extremely poor/corrosive.

  18. petermartin2001
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    “The Conservative critique of Mr Brown’s approach in 2007 was correct. Near the top of the boom all state borrowing should have stopped. ”

    No. Government should have issued more money into the economy prior to the peak, but at the same time as slowly increasing interest rates to slow down borrowing, to prevent , or at least alleviate, the effects of the crash. The expansionary effect of extra government spending should have been equal and opposite to the contractionary effect of higher interest rates.

    The GFC was caused by excessive private debt, largely in the housing sector, rather than excessive public debt. Essentially one is the inverse of the other. If the government sector is in surplus the non-government sector has to be in deficit and vice verse.

    At the turn of the millennium both the Clinton Government in the USA and the Blair government in the UK ran budget surpluses. The cause wasn’t high taxes or reduced government spending, (the evidence is that these aren’t the defining factors) but excessive private credit generation leading to the dotcom bubble. When banks lend they create new money which finds its way into the governments coffers as that created money is spent and respent and is taxed at each step of the way. It still leaves a debt in the private sector though.

    Consequently, after a few years of excessive credit generation the private sector runs out of funds at the same time as governments report much reduced deficits or even surpluses! Therefore when Governments claim credit for reduced deficits it is a sign that the private borrowing is excessive. Like is happening right now! Bust invariably follows boom.

    There was a bust after the Blair and Clinton surpluses, caused by the end of the dotcom bubble, later termed the tech wreck, but this was largely headed off by a new bubble created by too much lending in the housing market. Particularly in the US, the private banks went particularly crazy lending to borrowers who in no way could be considered credit worthy. In the UK too, irrationality ruled. Buyers were buying properties with no prior inspection. It was hardly possible to visit a bank without being offered a loan! It was obvious to anyone around 2006 that the economy was in a precarious state. The idea then was there was even someone more irrational (the greater fool theory) who would pay an even sillier price for an already overpriced asset just a few months later of course.

    It wasn’t all about the housing market. Silly predictions were made about the share market being a one way bet. Investors were taking out huge loans to speculate, often egged on by unscrupulous financial advisors running get-rich-quick schemes.

    It all had to end in tears and of course it did.

  19. English Pensioner
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

    Mend the roof whilst the sun shines?
    Unfortunately there are too many people who would prefer to ignore the roof and go and buy a new 56″ television and a subscription to Sky Sports. Even more unfortunately, there are too many people of that type in politics who conform to the definition of a politician as being someone who does what is expedient not what is necessary.

    • JayArhaight
      Posted June 9, 2014 at 3:37 pm | Permalink

      Politics is the art of the possible not the necessary

    • Peter Richmond
      Posted June 9, 2014 at 5:48 pm | Permalink

      So true! I see the nice Mr Clegg is already going public in the press today saying in a couple of years he will be pushing the boat out with a return to more borrowing.

  20. Terry
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

    Yes, it all looks good on the surface but under a magnifying glass?

    For April, PSNB was £11 Billions pushing up Public Sector Debt to £1.27 Trillions (75.6% GDP) and interest costs to service that debt up to £1 Billion per Week. The Trade deficit also widened in April, compounding the debt problems.

    Furthermore, Income Tax receipts were down by 6.8% against April 2013. And this fall in tax revenue occurred, despite the growth in the economy. Now, without serious attempts to reduce that debt and the monthly deficit, there will be no chance of a full recovery. £52 Billions per year lost to debt interest is a huge waste of tax payers money.

    So, are the Government deliberately holding off all necessary cuts to expenditure until after the election next year?
    If indeed, they do this, they are no better than Labour for such duplicitous electioneering. However, such a plan as the deferring of bad news is par for the course in our political system of century 21 and to be expected from all of the main parties we have but is does not help us in the back streets of Britain at all.

  21. Bryan
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 12:21 pm | Permalink

    Perhaps we would get better public service delivery, and a better all-round quality of staff, if job vacancies were advertised in newspapers other than the Guardian.

    This should particularly apply to the BBC!

    Using the tax payers money to help prop up left wing media and organisations in this way is unacceptable.

    I seem to remember that the Unions used to get a hefty grant to help with ‘modernisation/reorganisation’ or whatever, which they promptly appeared to give straight to the Labour party. Is this still the case?

  22. Chris S
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    David Cameron should instruct every department to take the most aggressive nationalist view of all EU legislation in deciding policy on benefits, job strategies.

    For far too long the UK Civil Service has meekly gone along with almost every bit of nonsense that comes from Brussels and in many cases adds an additional coating of gold plate. This is costing us billions.

    Just one example : every owner of a diesel powered leisure boat in the UK is now paying 50% more for their fuel simply because Brussels refused to allow the UK an extension of a derogation that permitted red diesel to be supplied without road fuel taxation.

    What business is it of Brussels to interfere with the UK’s policy on the taxation of fuel for leisure boats ?

    In that case, UK boat owners were very pleased that the Government and HMRC came up with a innovative scheme which prevented fuel costs from doubling overnight but that was a rare event indeed.

    We are occasionally taken to task over interpretation but not nearly as often as I would like. If our interpretation of EU legislation was continually being challenged by the Commission I would think we were getting it about right.

    On the other hand, we would have none of these problems if we were able to get out of the whole sorry mess.

  23. hefner
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 1:38 pm | Permalink

    I cannot help but think that there must be somewhere a misunderstanding!
    Looking at the posting of dated 14 May 2014, I would think that the present Government has already taken quite a bit of measures to limit a “flood” of migrant workers from the EU. Furthermore it would seem that 25% of the coming Bulgarians and Romanians are graduates (compare that with 14% of graduates in the overall British population). (And if anything, less than 10% of the incoming EU migrants are claiming a Job Seeker Allowance).
    So in fact if there is anything to fear, isn’t it that this generation of migrants or their children will actually be taking over Parliament in the future? … Just a thought …

    • Anonymous
      Posted June 9, 2014 at 7:18 pm | Permalink

      The 14% of British graduates will still far outnumber those of Bulgarian/Romanian making their way here.

      Your 25% vs 15% argument is incorrect because they are percentages of different numbers.

      So no. Not a worry. But what is a worry is Britain is being broken up into different tribes once more.

      People don’t fully realise how many civil wars it took to settle this land over the centuries.

      • Anonymous
        Posted June 9, 2014 at 7:27 pm | Permalink

        Fewer than 10% may be claiming Job Seekers Allowance but there are, of course, supplementary benefits to be had and which are not classified as JSA. Then there are other free services which are not covered by those earning low wages.

        Add to this the fact that at least some of our people wanted to work but have been displaced by migrant workers for various reasons – one of them being that employers are concerned about meeting employment quotas and equality targets or are worried about being sued for discrimination.

        The burden of JSA paid to our displaced workers is born by the taxpayer.

        What seems to have the political establishment exercised at the moment is not Bulgarians or Romanians making it in our Parliament but middle aged white men in blazers and ties.

        They are now public enemy number one.

        • Anonymous
          Posted June 9, 2014 at 7:34 pm | Permalink

          PS, I wear neither a blazer nor a tie !

  24. ian
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

    Renter, renters everywhere. Someone writes a book and it becomes the gospel of the renters. This book is named after the writer KEYNESIANS. Its like the little red book from china. The slogan is ‘why wait till tomorrow when you can have it today.’ Its a slavery policy like PAYE. Libs lost there support by putting the rent up on students. They did not know that young people were there supports. 6% as you walk in door . Then you must have a mortgage and a car, a pension. The renters like the women the best,that”s why they always talking about child care and going to work because they buy every thing on plastic and put it in cupboard and that”s were it sits never to see the light of day. They put the rent up and down according to how much they think you can pay. Its no good wasting shoe leather going down to the polling station because they are all sitting around thinking of ways to rent you out. As for paying off the debt, when money come in it goes out the door straight away, there the 50 air planes to buy for the aircraft carriers 1 billion each hs2 50 billion and so on, they have big list. (etc ed) This is a war and the people are losing. I like the people on 100,000 a year, they think they have some skin in the game, they are deluding themselves. If you do not take your head out of the sand and stop playing with the renters gadgets and games you deserve all you got coming.

  25. Kenneth R Moore
    Posted June 9, 2014 at 10:33 pm | Permalink

    It seem like we need to mend the foundations for a start ….4 years of Conservative economic misrule has left the country tottering on the edge of another financial crash.
    I do hope Dr Redwood will acknowledge that the ‘growth’ of which he speaks isnt all it seems. If every £1 of growth is bought by £9 of borrowed money it isn’t really growth at all.
    It’s hardly surprising that if we import 250,000 new people every year and pump billions of borrowed money into the economy we get a pathetic 0.2 or 0.3% growth. I for one won’t be jumping for joy.
    I understand politicians need to ‘talk up’ figures to get elected…but to maintain credibility I would hope Professor Redwood’s analysis to go a little deeper…even if such an account makes uncomfortable reading. I don”t see much evidence of re-balancing of ther economy ?. Why are we still importing so much and exporting so little ?. The economy is very sick and only been kept alive by the life support machine of the printing press.

    The Conservative critique would have carried more weight if the Conservatives didn’t pledge to match Labour spending plans – ‘sharing the proceeds of growth’ between the private and public sectors. They were all out to overspend then and they have been at it for the past 4 years busily racking up debt for the prudent and future generations to pay off.

  26. Kenneth R Moore
    Posted June 10, 2014 at 2:22 pm | Permalink

    Dr Redwood,

    Does that mean your party is actually going to reduce overall spending in a meaningful way and be truthfull with the electorate…god forbid upset a few special interest groups including the ‘ Save Our NHS ‘ fanatics…. Instead of just cutting the rate of GROWTH in spending whilst pretending to be tough on the deficit ?.

  27. uanime5
    Posted June 10, 2014 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

    Today as we climb out of the Brown slump, we should continue to throttle back on state borrowing.

    Given that Osborne has borrowed more in 4 years than Brown borrows in 13 I wouldn’t say that it’s been throttled back.

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.

  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page