The Bank of England printed too much money. They bought too many bonds at crazily inflated prices. They kept interest rates too low for too long. That gave us a big inflation, as some of us predicted.

They then blamed the inflation on rising energy costs following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. They refuse to explain why inflation was three times target before Russia attacked. They are silent on why big energy importers Japan and China did not have the high inflation when energy shot up.

Too late  they shoved up interest rates. They destroyed money. They sold bonds at depressed prices. They sent the bill for all the losses to the Treasury to make taxpayers pay to  bail them out. This has now delivered the shallow recession and downturn some of us predicted.

So why do we put up with this level of incompetence? It was obvious to anyone who studies money and credit that they lurched from too much to too little. The Bank refused to comment on money and credit, and revelled in a model of the economy and forecasts that were wildly wrong. They forecast 2% inflation for the period when it hit 11%.

What should they do now? Change their model to get their forecasts more accurate. Strengthen the Monetary Committee with some who do think money and credit matter. Stop selling bonds at  huge  losses. Allow sufficient money and credit to accommodate a bit of growth.

I was talking to a London plumber.His  invoices  for work include extra charges for parking, for ULEZ and for Congestion charge. It is a daily battle for him to get to a new job given the closure of so many streets and then to find an all day parking place. Protesters are still going out and putting boxes or other drapes over the London cameras to show their opposition without damaging these expensive spies prying into our lives. This site does not support law breaking protests.

This week Wokingham Borough has had to put  out a press release at our expense telling people not to argue with the workers carrying out another of their hated anti driver projects. Of course people should not shout at or threaten Council contractors. The need to say this shows just how much the Council misjudges the mood as it seeks to wind up all those of us who need a vehicle for work. Wasting £5.5 m of tax on a scheme which will cause delays and put people off driving to what were easily accessible local shops and a garage is a bad idea.

These cameos are part of a much bigger picture. Lib Dem and similar Councils show scorn and disdain for working people who need a car or van to get to work. They show no sympathy for  busy parents who need to drop children off at school so they can get to their job. These Councils consult and ignore. They revel in the misery they cause others. They explode with self righteousness if anyone argues back that they need to use a car or van. Yet despite this many of these preaching Councillors still rely on a gas boiler, go in fossil fuel cars and take jet planes to their holidays.

The collision of green demands by many in the governing class with the needs and pressures of daily life is becoming acute. Many of the green campaigners are hypocrites, flying  off to air conditioned hotels to hold forth again about the need to lower other people’s carbon footprints. If government press too far with their bans, their surveillance cameras, their schemes to fine people off the road with ultra low speed limits, special lanes and box junctions, they may find instead they become very unpopular. Going too far has already changed the Dutch government.

Labour’s decision to abandon most of its planned £28 bn a year extra investment programme for net zero has served to highlight the costs of the policy. It should also lead Labour to ask how they could both afford and achieve their wish to accelerate the UK’s progress to net zero compared to very exacting existing government targets. Under Mr Sunak the government has been relaxing some of the requirements, recognising that for the policy to work it has to be undertaken at a pace that people will accept. Much of the investment needs to be made by individuals and by private companies, so it needs to be realistic. The faster the government wants to go the more subsidy and direct public spending it will need to bring it about.

Labour say they are still wedded to the idea of zero carbon electricity generation by 2030. How can this be?  That would require the closure and write off of all our gas power stations and the remaining coal ones. If Drax is staying it would require a carbon capture and storage scheme to be up and running at great cost for that facility. It would require a massive expansion of the grid to handle more interruptible power and the planned expansion of electric heating and vehicles. It would need a major further investment in wind and solar power. It would require big battery installations to store power, and probably some new pump storage schemes as well. No-one seriously  believes this can be done by 2030. Nor could be it be done for part of a planned  £28bn a year let alone without £28 bn a year.

Two of the big areas where net zero requires different conduct by individuals are  transport and heating. Labour’s faster progress would mean ripping out far more gas boilers far sooner, which most people show no wish to do. It would require a fast replacement of diesel and petrol vehicles with electric. It would require an end to many holidays abroad or a rapid roll out of synthetic fuels for all aeroplanes. It is time interviewers on main media asked these crucial questions of those who advocate faster moves to net zero. It is simply wrong to be told wind energy is cheaper than fossil fuel energy when the figures do not take into account the costs of back up power today from fossil fuel. Nor do they take into account the full costs of extra grid, the costs of battery and pump storage , the costs of smart meters and the costs of rolling out charger points and extra cable capacity into homes for a more comprehensive renewables system.

facts4eu.org/news/2024_feb_budget_ideas. publishes my budget article with their comments.

The Green revolution is a top down revolution. It is invented and enforced by governments and big companies. Whilst a majority of people say they think climate change is an issue, a big majority do not rush to change their own lifestyles in line with the requests and requirements of big government and the green revolutionaries. Most people are happy with gas or oil boilers and or solid fuel fires to heat their homes, and most of us still have diesel or petrol vehicles. Meat eating is still popular and people like flying abroad for their holidays.

Governments have understood that it is easier to force big business to comply with their green agenda than it is to get the public to accept the current approved products and changed lifestyles of green transition. Car companies queue up to undermine their successful past investments in making petrol and diesel vehicles, and to condemn their past products. They do however expect large subsidies to help pay for the very costly investment in making batteries and electric alternatives, and now expect governments to force people to buy these products as not enough want to buy them from free choice. Electricity generators rush to put in wind turbines and solar farms so they can close their cost efficient and reliable gas and coal power stations, but expect priority rules for interruptible renewable power and price structures that favour the new investments. Steel companies plan expensive electric arc recycling works to replace steel production in blast furnaces, but they too need large subsidies to try to get the sums to work.

Governments and companies need to work on how they could create affordable reliable good products that help them in their aim of cutting CO 2. They are going to need much more buy in from consumers to achieve their ambitious targets.  Consumers are making it very clear they expect the products to be better and cheaper than they currently are. Government does not  have to subsidise or regulate to get people to buy mobile phones or to switch to on line shopping, as those changes area popular with customers at market prices without intervention. Sales of electric vehicles to individual buyers are struggling in many places without large subsidies. Hertz has recently announced difficulties in renting out EVs and decided to sell one third of its present EV fleet to get more in line with public demand.

Worse still for governments and political parties that are keen on the drive to net zero is the growing evidence that parties in government that  go too far in forcing unpopular net zero changes lose elections. The Netherlands government lost heavily in the last election because it was trying to cut down animal husbandry and meat eating faster than the public thought acceptable. President Macron’s party has had some bruising encounters with public opinion over the level of fossil fuel taxes and diesel prices. The original gilets jaunes protests were about energy taxes which forced a climb down. Recently Macron has had to stop further taxes on agricultural diesel in the face of angry farmers.

When across Europe and the UK fossil fuel energy prices soared, doing the governments’ work for them forcing less use, governments rightly saw the need to cushion people from the price impact  on this essential. Germany has given into pressure to delay the ending of new diesel and petrol cars. In the US Presidential Candidate Trump is ahead of President Biden in the polls , His  policy of withdrawing from the Paris climate change treaty and targets compared to Biden who wants to go further faster is clearly no barrier to his possible victory and may be helping him. Many people do not want to be told by government how to heat their homes, what car to buy, and where to have their holiday.

The point I am making today is the trading public sector has got a lot dearer over the years. Ministers from governments of all complexions do not seem to exercise much control over costs and productivity of public bodies.

I looked at  the 1960 Guidebook to Dover Castle that my family  had bought on some long past visit. My computer tells me the Bank of England and successive governments have so devalued our currency that modern prices are 21.5 times higher than they were in 1960 on average. The Ministry of Works government Guidebook gave me some insight into public service inflation since then.

Dover Castle remains owned by the state with its visitor activities run by the charity English Heritage, an evolution from the Ministry of Works. The book says an adult visitor in 1960 would have paid 5p to see the Keep , lighthouse and ramparts, and another 1.25p to go into the tunnels. To do the same today the adult visitor buying a ticket at the site would pay £23.60. That is 377 times the cost in 1960, many times the rate of general inflation.

It is true there are now additional tunnels to see as in 1960 the Second World War tunnels were still out of bounds to visitors. The presentation of the Keep has changed, The collection of medieval armour and weapons adorning part of the interior has been replaced with modern soft furnishings and a  bit of wooden furniture with designs taken from contemporary illuminated manuscripts. Whilst as the old Guidebook notes the interiors and their windows had been changed over the centuries the current aim is to present it in its Henry II version as best judged.

The Guidebook itself has experienced a bit less inflation. The old one is considerably smaller with one  colour photo  and more smaller black and white photos. It cost 10 p compared to £5.50 for its modern and bigger counterpart. That is inflation of 55 times or nearly treble  the general inflation rate. There was plenty of good reading material in the 1960 version but the colour photos and art work are much better in the modern one.

Greens like trains. They seem to think they are free or low on CO 2 though all the time there diesel trains and electric trains running on power from a  fossil fuelled power station that is a lie. One day when all the trains are electric, and when all the electricity is from renewables maybe this will be a sensible view of theirs. In the meantime we can harness their enthusiasm for trains with plans  to maximise use of the substantial railway assets the nation owns.

The best green and commercial use of rail capacity could be for goods movement. Taking many more lorries off the road and using rail tracks more at night would be a double win. To work well there needs to be more track spurs from mainline to retail and industrial parks. The rail businesses need to offer good pricing for waggon loads , not just whole train loads. There needs to be a network of tractor units to collect  from stations and do the last few miles  where there is  no track direct to factory or warehouse.

To win back commuter travel the industry needs to find the best way of charging. Flexible season tickets where the more you travel on the specified journey the cheaper per journey it becomes is the obvious way to go. Discounts could be bigger for Mondays and Fridays the less popular days.

The railway needs to experiment with  events,leisure, short breaks and holiday travel. This is  becoming  the most common, with huge discounts in fares to win heavily loss making business. This is a very bad model  for the taxpayer and generates more CO 2 creating discretionary travel. Prices need  to be more realistic, and entrepreneurs need to  venture with event, hospitality and travel organisers to make it an attractive package.

The current losses on rail are unacceptable. Too many little used passenger trains run, whilst some popular times  and routes lack capacity. Freight could be economic.

Labour’s big difference with the Conservatives was going to be a big programme of net zero state investment and subsidy. This would be backed up by stricter targets to be enforced by tougher and earlier regulation to force us out of our cars and into our heat pumps. How they complained when the PM made a speech favour of a slower and less regulated  pathway to low carbon. Conservatives want the PM to do more to show he has turned away from unrealistic targets, dirigiste regulations and wasteful subsidy.

The Labour approach was full of lies and implausibilities. Where did they get £28 bn a year from to pay for the programme?  They now admit there was no £28 bn and they cannot find it.

They say they will have moved over fromfossil fuel electricity by 2030. No way. We still cannot store much wind and solar for wind and sun free hours and still lack grid to handle so much more interruptible  power.

They say many more people will insulate , buy  heat pumps and switch to electric cars. You cannot achieve that  by just spending more taxpayer money on subsidies and tax cuts. Half the country will not even accept a “free” smart meter let alone have their  homes made into a building site for a heat pump.

Maybe they would get us to deindustrialise at a faster pace to make us ever more dependent on imports whilst cutting CO 2 produced here. As for the favoured  green jobs they would create plenty of those in China.No sign of realistic plans to wrestle the manufacture of solar panels, wind turbines, big batteries or electric cars away from now well established Chinese dominance.