Author: johnredwood

So far Mr Trump has got into the race and stayed in it largely by dealing with the darker issues of crime, terrorism and migration. The US and EU establishments dislike his rhetoric associating crime with migration and his policy of a border fence or wall with Mexico.

Mr Trump does have a more positive side. His tax plans are for a major tax cut for America. He proposes that no-one on an income below $25,000 should pay any tax. He recommends just 4 bands of tax at zero, 10%, 20% with a top rate of just 25%, making US personal income tax very attractive by advanced world standards. He wants to see a single 15% rate of profits tax for all businesses, with a one off lower rate to get US corporations to repatriate and profit and  cash sitting offshore. He would abolish the death tax.

These proposals gained only a passing reference in his Acceptance speech at the Republican Convention. If he starts to market these ideas more widely they could prove very appealing to many Americans. His tactic appears to  be to detach worried low and middle income democrats to his cause by offering policies to boost their incomes and lower their tax bills. We know that  many of them are not enamoured of Mrs Clinton, as they showed by their support for Mr Sanders in the primaries.

Mr Trump is also attacking head on the past US establishment’s policy of military intervention in the Middle East. Whilst he is not an isolationist, he may well find a fertile political territory of people who resent the loss of life and the money expended on foreign wars, when there is little settled democratic government in the affected areas to show for them.

There’s no let up in the efforts to talk the UK economy down. PMI rushed out a week early their July survey, with less than a full set of responses, to show that the confidence of a number of senior business executives fell when they got the result of the Brexit vote wrong. There’s a surprise!

These surveys have forecast recessions in the past that did not happen. Confidence took a nasty knock on 9/11 for understandable reasons but it did not lead to a recession. It would be surprising if many executives who by a large majority seemed to vote Remain suddenly expressed confidence a few days after losing the vote. As I discovered in the referendum campaign a large proportion of senior large company executives were keen to remain.

I suggest commentators and pundits calm down and await data on what actually happens June- October in the real economy. The signs I see suggest there will be no recession. Employment is at high levels, real wages are rising, and export intentions are up.

The Chancellor has said that he will await more data  and come to a judgement about the balance of the budget and economic policy at the time of the Autumn Statement in the normal way. I welcome that commonsense approach. If government borrowing rates remain at the new much lower levels we have reached in recent weeks post Brexit, he will have an immediate windfall in the form of lower future interest charges on government debt. He could use this to cut the deficit or to spend a bit more.  There is also the question of when will the government cease making financial contributions to the EU.  That money should be spent on our priorities, as argued here before.

There is no need to move to a government  surplus by 2020-21, unless the economy has by then  heated up too much and is in danger of going too fast. At current borrowing rates using some borrowed money for investment could make sense. It will be important to make sure the chosen investments do add to national wealth and income by being well thought through.

Reports from Paris indicate that their President understand the Brexit vote well, and confirms the need for the ULK to follow its decision. He  indicated that the special bilateral arrangements over the  Calais border will remain, as Vote Leave predicted and Remain contested. He and Mrs May confirmed the wish to have strong co-operation over security and intelligence, as Vote Leave forecast. He said the UK should get on with Brexit, which is what the majority want in the UK. He said the UK should cease to be a member of the single market in order to control the movement of people, which again is in line with the Vote Leave position in the referendum.

The President did not  make any proposals for new tariffs or other barriers on his trade with us. It is still difficult to see what the issue is over trade. The USA, China and other large players have decent access to EU markets without being EU single market members. The UK currently has tariff free access and no-one seems to be suggesting tariffs up to WTO levels should be imposed, though these would be manageable. Too many so called experts who wanted us to remain now want to make a lot of money out of advising us how difficult it will be. The French President seemed to have a clear and good understanding of how it could be done quickly.

This week has seen record levels of employment, continuing good jobs growth numbers, and rising real wages. Yesterday the deficit figures showed it continuing to fall. Spending is under reasonable control, whilst tax revenues carry on rising.  In the second quarter of 2016 the deficit was down by £2.3bn compared to the same quarter last year.  Spending was up by 1.3% overall, including a large rise in capital investment. Revenue was up by more than 3%. This news was mainly pre the vote, when there was some slowdown of activity here in the UK and elsewhere in the EU.

April saw a large jump in Stamp Duty Land tax as people brought property just before the deadline for higher Stamp duties to come in on buy to let purchasers. National Insurance receipts are well up reflecting the good rate of new jobs growth. There are  no Petroleum Revenue Tax receipts, given the decline in Scottish oil output and the new lower price of oil.

Retail sales rose 1.6% in Quarter 2, after a rise of 1.2% in Quarter One of 2016. A number of important property deals have been signed since the Brexit  vote, including Wells Fargo announcing its intention to spend £300 m on a new office headquarters in the City. This followed hard on the heels of the purchase of the Debenhams store on Oxford Street post the vote for £400 m on a low yield.

The immediate fears of collapse and a big loss of confidence have proved misplaced. The IMF was forced to make a major revision to its forecasts, removing any sign of a UK recession post the referendum. The IMF now thinks the UK will be the second fastest growing advanced economy next year after the USA. This compared with their pre vote special forecast of a UK recession in 2017, with plunging share and house prices. What a difference a month makes! What a pity the IMF has become such an unreliable and erratic forecaster, meddling in member states politics.

The government should not be drawn into discussion of free movement by our EU neighbours. The referendum was quite clear. We wish to take back control of our borders. Vote Leave expressly ruled out the Norway option or EEA membership, mainly because of the need to accept free movement.

The way to control numbers will be through a work permit system with quotas for skilled and qualified people we need, adapted to our economic and social needs. There is no need to stop people coming here as visitors or to invest and set up businesses if they have their own means of support. The controls should be on admission to benefits and through employers who will need to ensure the individual from the EU has a work permit, just as they have to for people from outside the EU today.

This method of taking back control also avoids difficult issues on the Irish border, allowing free access as today.

The only issues the UK needs negotiate relate to the basis for continued trade and business links. We should propose no change, but be ready to respond if they do wish to erect barriers in the way of their trade with us.

Towards the end of the John Major era a group emerged in the Conservative party who called themselves modernisers. My initial reaction was favourable, as I too thought we needed to modernise, to generate a new agenda for a new century. Some of what they wanted us to do made sense. They promoted a new tolerance, an enthusiasm for civil liberties, and a less restrictive attitude to people’s individual lifestyles. During the Labour years they sought to ensure that a future Conservative government would not wish to change Labour’s legislation on these matters. Many of us agreed we would not repeal Labour’s social legislation, though we also came to see that Labour in office was too authoritarian, permitting new attacks on the government where it took away our lliberties.

Modernising  came with a price, however. It was often  factional, seeking to caricature or write off people who held different views or who were more socially conservative.  It was also based upon a love of the EU, so that advocates of true modernising decided few Eurosceptics who wanted powers back or wished to leave the EU could be seen as modernisers, whatever their views on other matters. Modernising  usually included an interventionist military strategy leading to UK engagement in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and Syria, despite the growing opposition to this on b0th Conservative and Labour backbenches.  Some of its adherents wanted to see a realignment of UK politics. They wished to see a new party emerge of modernising Conservatives with Blairite Labour, flanked on the right by a Eurosceptic Conservative grouping and on the left by a true socialist grouping. They saw themselves as centrist. Others thought their military interventions were far  from centrist,and many Eurosceptic resented the idea that wanting to stop the transfer of more powers to Brussels was either right or left.

As things worked out, they found themselves liking coalition between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives, as that restrained some Conservative policies and produced a government happy to recommend the transfer of more powers to the EU through the continuous drip drip of new EU laws and decisions. Quite often the Conservative /Lib Dem coalition had to rely on Labour votes or Labour abstention to carry its EU and Middle Eastern policies through.

In the referendum the Blairites and the modernisers came together as the core of the Remain campaign. The central axis of Peter Mandelson/George Osborne was backed by  leading personnel of the modernisers and Blairites.

Today it looks very unlikely that the Conservative party will split as its enemies might wish. The new Leader has united it by accepting the verdict of the UK voters on Brexit and by  promising to implement it. There were always far more Leavers and Eurosceptics than remain supporters or believers in the EU project in the unwhipped Conservative party. However, a split in Labour does look more likely. Mr Corbyn may well win his leadership election, whilst a large majority of Labour MPs may still refuse to serve him in Opposition jobs. Maybe the one  part of the modernising plans that will come to fruition will be the detachment of the Blairite Labour supporters and their attachment loosely or more directly  to the unashamedly pro EU Lib Dem party.