Author: johnredwood

The favourite pastime of some economic commentators and broadcasters is to say  such and such a figure about the economy they think is disappointing  is because of Brexit. Often they are wrong to blame the Brexit vote for the figure they do not like. So let’s have a look at some of the figures that must be in their  view owing to Brexit, as they made forecasts of how the Brexit vote would hit these  very figures.

1. The FTSE 100 Index. Before the vote they said it would fall if we voted Leave. Instead it has risen strongly from 6138 on 24 June to 7687 at the end of 2017. This rise is about the same as the French Index, a bit better than the Italian Index and massively better than the Madrid Index over the same time period.  It is less than the US index.  After the vote when they saw it was rising they shifted their forecast and said it would be the FTSE 250 of more domestic companies that would fall.
2. The FTSE 250 has instead risen from 16088 on 24 June 2016 to 20726 at end 2017. This is a bigger rise than the FTSE 100 , which they said would only go up owing to its overseas earnings and currency effects. That’s a 29% rise because of Brexit.
3. House prices. They forecast they would go down. They have risen gently since the referendum vote.
4. Employment. They said it would fall. It has gone up by  half a million comparing the August to October 2017 figure with first quarter 2016  before the vote.
5. Unemployment. They said it would rise. It has instead fallen from 1.67 m in the first quarter of 2016 to 1.42 m in the latest ONS figures.
6. Economic growth. They forecast a recession in the winter of 2016-17. Instead the UK economy continued to report good growth of around 1.8-1.9%.

So we can now say that thanks to Brexit unemployment has fallen, employment has risen, share prices especially for domestic companies have gone up and house prices have risen modestly.

It is true that they forecast a fall in the pound. It did fall against the dollar at first, but has put in a good performance more recently rising 12% off the lows. If it fell because of Brexit presumably it is now rising because of Brexit.

Wouldn’t it be good if forecasters and commentators went back to thinking about what truly moves these  numbers, and come to see the impact of Brexit has been greatly exaggerated. All the reasons why the pound went down or up before Brexit still apply!

The endless and repetitious debate about the consequences of Brexit put out before and after the vote by Remain campaigners is depressingly narrow as well as wrong. They concentrate all the time on alleged short term economic losses. They have been comprehensively wrong with their gloomy short term forecasts for the aftermath of the vote, and are busy revising the timelines for the same old false forecasts. They are unwilling to engage in the much bigger issue of how we can now restore our democracy and reinstitute our freedoms.

Fortunately we do not have to choose between economic loss and freedoms gained, as Brexit can secure economic gain with the right domestic policies. We need to remember just how important our vote and voice used to be, and h0w they can again count for more when we have  cast off EU lawmaking.

The history of England and the United Kingdom that came together in 1485,1603,1707 and 1800 is the history of the long march of every man and every woman to gain voice and vote. As we work to restore the sovereignty of the people and to give powers back to the UK Parliament  and to devolved administrations and Councils we would be wise to remember the struggles to get us our democratic system.

Freedom from the tyranny of a monarch who ignored Parliament was the cause of the Parliamentarians in the civil war. The 1660 settlement entrenched rights and powers for the limited franchise of voters and their MPs to control a wayward King. The 1688 settlement when a new King and Queen were invited to assume the throne added  to these limits on arbitrary power further. The early nineteenth century saw popular pressure to widen the franchise to all men, leading through the Reform Act to later completion of the task. In the early twentieth century the cause of female suffrage took to the political stage and finished the revolution.

These gains were hard fought and should be  valued. The campaigners  were right to dedicate their lives to ensuring all adults had voice and vote, that governments had to heed public opinion and needed the approval of elected representatives who could demand redress of grievance and improved conduct of public policy.

Membership of the European Union reversed part of this process. The country was signed up to a system which meant laws could  be created and taxation raised and spent without the UK public and their directly elected representatives having the final say or even an effective voice. The proponents claimed that the European Parliament met some of the democratic deficit, but in truth a single country block of MEPs was never strong enough to assert the UK public will when this was at  variance with the EU wishes. Nor does the European Parliament have sole or even at times any sway on things that matter.  They claimed that Ministers and the  Prime  Minister represented us at the Councils of the EU,but they were often outvoted or persuaded not to oppose something the UK public did not want.

The UK Parliament became a bystander, watching large volumes of law passing through which Parliament could neither amend nor reject. The voting public became powerless to change any of that law. If they voted out of office one party who had allowed the EU  laws and taxes to pass, they voted into office another party that would do the same and uphold the EU laws and taxes.

When we leave the EU our vote to choose an MP and a governing party will once again have more power and authority. Government will no longer be able to say we have to tax green products and domestic fuel  because the EU demands, or have to organise our fishery in a way which is damaging both local  fishermen and fish. We will take back control. Either the elected government then changes things as we please, or it will be replaced by another government that will.

UK governments will not always  be wise or get things right. What Brexit brings us is the ability to press them to change, or to change them if they refuse. The thing I most want to change as we leave the EU is to nurture this precious flower of freedom.

2018 teems with opportunity.

Technology is driving amazing change. Robotics, artificial intelligence, social media and the internet are the children of today’s digital age. They offer us scope to achieve more, understand more, relate to each other better. They offer the UK the chance to be a digital pioneer and a global   exploiter of the scope for positive change these ideas allow.

The UK is well set to be a leader of the knowledge based businesses that are the hallmark of the digital world. With world class  universities, a capacity to set up small businesses easily and quickly, with flexible entrepreneurial people and a willingness to experiment, the UK can prosper from innovation.

Restoring our ability to govern ourselves and to provide the legal and social framework we need to succeed in this exciting era is part of our mission for 2018 into 2019. Brexit offers us scope to grow more of our own food, to control our own fishery, to make laws that support and help entrepreneurs whilst ensuring high standards, and to develop our global role with Agreements and Treaties as we see fit. The UK will return to the top tables in areas like Trade, the Environment and business regulation, expressing views and helping shape the global standards that increasingly dominate.

Across the Atlantic the Republicans in Congress are aiming to speed their economic gr0wth and to make the USA a magnet for investment by lowering tax rates. This will provide a welcome boost to world activity, and act as a reminder of the need to set competitive tax rates to allow jobs to grow and prosperity to flourish.

The world is a better place for less military intervention in the Middle East by the western powers, and for the planned withdrawal of Russia from Syria. It will not of itself stop all the Middle Eastern civil and religious strife, but it will remove some of the complications in the conflicts. I would like to see a period of relative peace when the west turns swords into helpful  robots. We can help transform the world by economic growth, technology and greater investment.

I wish you all a peaceful and prosperous New Year.

Prince Harry did well setting out his causes and campaigns as Guest editor of the Today programme.  He made good use of his slot.

The choice of some of the other Guest editors has left a feeling that the whole week is yet again unbalanced, and designed to prevent any Guest Editor being appointed who might try to shine light on topics and viewpoints the BBC prefers to ignore or criticise.

Here’s a few that might make for good radio.

1. A piece on why and how the economic establishments of the Treasury, IMF, World Bank and others could be so wrong in their economic forecasts of the consequences of the Exchange Rate Mechanism, the big build up of credit and derivatives prior to 2008, and the short term impact of the Brexit vote on the UK economy. This could include interviews with representatives of  the  handful of experts who did get all three of these big issues right.
2. A piece on security and price of energy, and the impact EU and UK policies have had on both this century. Can the needs of plentiful and cheap energy to deal with fuel poverty, keep people warm and ensure a decent manufacturing  base be reconciled with other policy objectives? Is current US or EU energy policy more helpful to the world economy?
3. A piece on whether the Trump Administration is serious about promoting peace by means other than constant military interventions in the Middle East, and whether the consequences of less military involvement over the last year have been better or worse than the Bush/Obama wars
4. A piece on the damage high taxes can do, and an examination of when and how revenue increases when rates are cut
5. A piece on what is a reasonable rate of migration to allow the provision of decent accommodation, school places, health  care and the rest to the new arrivals and the settled communities they join.

I had hoped with Guest editors the Today programme would seek to reconnect for just a day or two with the taxpayers, motorists and Eurosceptics it regularly castigates the rest of the year. I should have known better. This morning they have just given an interview with an “expert” who told them that people voting for “populist” parties threatened the underpinnings of liberal democracy in Europe. So there we have it. People voting against the EU and Euro establishment in their countries are anti democratic forces. Why wasn’t the expert asked why in the EU you are only allowed to vote for what the Establishment thinks is right?  Why do voters have to vote again when they get the answer to referendums wrong according to the Establishment? What should voters do when traditional parties remain wedded to Euro austerity policies?

There’s a surprise! The release of government documents includes delays to the release of European Exchange Rate Mechanism papers and a block on  the release of certain Euro papers relating to 1992 when we dropped out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. This was the biggest economic policy error of the last quarter of the twentieth century in the UK. The Establishment and main political parties united to visit this disaster on us. It led to falling house prices, a big rise in unemployment, closed factories, bankrupt businesses, all in the name of European integration. The irony is it delivered what Project Fear wrongly said our vote to leave the EU would deliver in the winter of 2016-17!  No wonder the Remain establishment is shy about revealing more of what happened then.

I was surprised by the way several contributors misread yesterday’s post. It was a piece about how technology and changing lifestyles might affect personal transport in the future. It was not  an attack upon personal choice or on the motorist. Use of a car is essential for most people today to get them to work or their children to school or to go to the shops. It is only in large cities like London where public transport offers a frequent and flexible service that more people find it practical to do without owning a car.

The government does need to do more to improve road safety and reduce congestion. I have sought to show how these twin aims can be mutually reinforcing and need not be in conflict in the way some suggest.

Short term and relatively cheap options include permitting and encouraging more off road parking, optimising phasing on traffic lights, creating segregated right hand turning lanes, and creating more pavements and cycleways away from main vehicle carriageways.

Dearer options include bypasses, more bridges over railway lines and rivers which act as barriers cutting road capacity especially into towns and cities.

The highways authorities need to offer safer and better solutions for school set down and pick up instead of encouraging parking on busy roads close to schools at peak times of day. They need to use more roundabouts  and fewer light sets. They should require replacement and new utility pipes and cables to be laid away from the main highway in accessible conduits to stop the need to dig up the road for naintenance and replacement.

The government is asking each Highways authority to identify and improve a local strategic road network. This is a good initiative with money for suitable improvement projects.

There are two possible revolutions for personal travel. The first is more people switching from owning to hiring a vehicle when they need one. The second is self driving cars removing the need for a driver. Let me make it clear I am not recommending this all be made compulsory or will happen in the next couple of years! I like many people need to own a  car to do my job.

The average UK private car  travels less than 8000 miles a year. This means it is only in use on the road for 11 days a year. For the remaining 354 days it is parked.

If many more  went over to hiring in a car when needed the numbers of cars could fall substantially  and still leave unused vehicle capacity to allow for non use overnight, for areas of low demand  and for maintenance of vehicles. This would have major consequences for car makers, for tax revenue from vehicle ownership, and for the need for parking.

In practice it is easy to see more city dwellers opting to rent not own, but it is less likely to   catch on in rural areas where people depend on cars and where it is more difficult guaranteeing hire car availability when needed. It is also related to the development of the automatic car, which would be easier to hire in as they would come round to your home when you needed one.

The move to self driving vehicles will  take time. Legislators are not yet persuaded that the technology of the automated vehicle hits acceptable safety standards, and fitting automated cars onto roads with cars with drivers poses problems. We will move to a world where the car increasingly drives itself but a person is needed to remain in charge.

Parking is a big issue. We need  to make more  off road parking provision all the time we run on our current car ownership  model. We have insufficient road capacity, so we need to work to get parked vehicles off the highway.

The Transport Secretary has rightly identified the need for more capacity on Council strategic road networks to complement the increase of capacity being achieved through the governments investment in more capacity on the national network. I am encouraging Wokingham and West Berkshire to come up with schemes and bid for cash to take advantage of this initiative.

Much of the congestion occurs at junctions. Mixed use junctions are also a place of maximum danger of accidents where cars, lorries, buses, cycles and pedestrians can get in each other’s way. The more  that can be done to provide safe seperate routes for cyclists and pedestrians at main road junctions the better. The more that can be done to segregate turning  traffic from traffic going straight on a main road, the safer the junction and the better the flow.

My local observations confirm my view that roundabouts usually increase capacity  compared to light controlled cross roads. On the A329 Wokingham to Reading Road the busy junction with the Woosehill spine road normally flows well with a roundabout.  In contrast the Winnersh crossroads, a little west of the  Woosehill turning has a four way phased light set which causes traffic jams most of the day. The Earley peripheral road also flows well most of the time with a series of roundabouts . The jams occur at the main junction with the A 329 with light controls on the roundabout. This I accept is a busier junction anyway which poses additional design issues.

The best example of a roundabout scheme which has greatly improved flows and increased safety is the new junction with the A30 for the Eversley  Road A 327. It should be an example for other schemes. Where roundabouts cannot be fitted light junctions need segregated right hand lanes, short phase right turn sequences, and priority phasing for the main  route and flow at the junction.  Where there is a main road with side roads the main road should always be green unless traffic sensors detect traffic wishing to join from the sides.