When the new government announced its economic aim is to promote growth and prosperity it heralded a most important change. It was a change I had pressed for for several years, meeting with disapproval  from Mr Hammond.

The old government had as its main aim the reduction of  debt as a proportion of GDP. This requirement of the Maastricht EU Treaty forced the government to constrain public spending too much and to keep tax rates too high. Indeed it often encouraged Mr Osborne and Mr Hammond to impose new taxes that were economically damaging, like their Stamp Duty and vehicle Excise Duty hikes which hit the homes and car markets.

Now the promotion of growth is the aim it allows the government to make selective increases in public spending in areas like health and schools where increased capacity and higher quality requires more and better paid staff. It will also require more tax cuts on earning and on transactions in our economy.

The official machine has clearly hit back a  bit against the welcome revolution. It has  placed a weaker version of the debt control back into the fiscal framework saying that over a five year period state debt as a proportion of GDP should decline. This is an improvement on needing  an update of the position of state debt every time there is a  new forecast with adjustments made in the short term. At each forecast there is an OBR admonition and a new pledge from government to get the debt down.  

I support the control that says all current public spending must be paid for out of tax revenues. Allowing borrowing for capital investment is fine. It does require good capital investment assessments and good controls over build costs and project management. Some of these need improving as the government plans more public investment.

Meanwhile we await some signs from the UK economic establishment that they recognise the rest of the world is engaged in a battle to prevent the slowdown turning into something worse. Today’s problem is not the threat of too much inflation, but too little activity. The rest of the world is cutting taxes, boosting liquidity and cutting interest rates. The world should escape recession as a result.

In the Eurozone Mrs Lagarde has stated that she thinks the negative interest rates, money creation and bond buying they are still doing is as far as the ECB can go. She wants some fiscal relaxation to boost growth.

Today our hearts go out to the family and friends of those killed in the knife attacks. I send my condolences. I also wish a speedy recovery to those injured.

There has not been a lot of media comment,  but the pound has risen   from 1.06 Euros to 1.17 Euros since August  and from $1.21 to $1.29. The commentators say this has happened thanks to opinion polls implying a Conservative government that can get Brexit done.

Indeed, its not so far off the Euro 1.23 and $1.37 levels  it was at just before the referendum. Since then we have seen a worldwide strengthening of the dollar against most currencies, to do with US interest rates being a lot higher than Euro area, Japanese and UK ones.

Prior to the referendum and any suggestion we might leave the EU sterling hit a low of 1.04 Euros in 2009. In the 1980s sterling was well below current levels against the dollar whilst in the EEC.

There has been a lot of nonsense talked about sterling and Brexit. Sterling has fluctuated substantially against both the dollar and the Euro all the time we were firmly in the EU. Interest rate differentials, different outlooks for growth and inflation all have an impact, as does relative money policy.  Once out of the EU sterling will doubtless  continue to go up and down according to relative sentiment about our economic policy and  valuations as it has done during  our long time in the EU.

I do not predict UK election results where I am taking part. The SNP and Lib Dems do, and are predicting a hung Parliament.  I see the polls as others do, and read that there could still be a hung Parliament where post election deals would decide how we are governed.  I hope that is not the outcome, given the disastrous last months of the last Parliament where no-one had a majority.

Meanwhile some parties are telling us how they would behave if the electorate voted for another stalemate.  Nicola Sturgeon has set out her terms to allow a Labour minority government to take office. She wants an early second referendum on Scottish independence, the removal of Trident submarines from Scotland and more money for the NHS.  Jeremy Corbyn probably agrees with the second and third, and Labour would doubtless finesse the issue of another referendum in order to get Labour into government.

Jo Swinson seems to have abandoned her rhetoric of expecting a Lib Dem majority. Whilst playing hard to get she has made it crystal clear she would not want to help a minority Conservative government, so it only leaves one option of Labour into office . It might well not be a coalition, but just allowing them to win confidence votes would be sufficient for Labour to take over.

The push for a second Independence referendum in Scotland would be disruptive. It would establish the idea that governments only accept referendum decisions they like and make people vote and vote again to get a reversal. It would invite further uncertainty over Brexit, with the parties concerned wanting a second referendum on that as well. It would plunge the country into another two years or more of constitutional wrangling and confusion, undermine  business confidence and get in the way of the new Parliament doing thigs to improve public services, grow the economy and pursue an strong and consistent  foreign and trade policy.

Now is the time for a clear decision. We need a majority government  to move on from Brexit and to remind the SNP they had their referendum and promised to accept its result.

The Conservative Manifesto, echoing Vote Leave, promises to take back control of our money and our laws. Some are writing in to claim we will have to live with tax harmonisation or a level playing field with the EU after we have left thanks to the wIthdrawal Agreement.

I do not see it like that. It is most important we are free to set our own taxes. Today in the EU we have got away with setting a lower Corporation Tax rate than many other states, though there have been adverse judgements on other Corporation tax matters making us do as the ECJ decides. We are free to set our own Income tax rates, but are subject to strict controls on VAT which is partly an EU tax.

The government has made clear it will change the list of items subject to VAT once out. We need to assert our own authority over all taxes. The Bill to implement the Withdrawal Agreement contains a sovereignty clause. Once the Implementation period is over EU tax and other laws will no longer apply unless we choose to enact similar measures.

I do not think we will still have to raise or keep up taxes that we want to lower or abolish once out. Debate on the bill will be an important opportunity to clarify this matter. The likely decision to press on and take VAT off some items will be important proof that we have indeed taken back control of our taxes.

The government has already carried out two of the essential policy changes for us to be better off. The first is to switch the aim of policy to the promotion of prosperity and growth. The second is to make selective increases in public sector employment with teachers, police and doctors, and to expand worthwhile public investment.

The third must be to cut taxes in a Brexit budget. In a fast moving global economy capital and talent moves to the places with the more attractive tax rates. The UK government has been correct to lower our Corporation Tax rates at a time when the USA, India and others are doing the same. It is also necessary to have competitive personal Income Tax and transaction tax rates. The planned cuts in National Insurance will boost personal incomes and provide a stimulus to consumption.

The UK needs to lower Stamp Duties and CGT on property transactions.  Lower rates will also bring in more revenue by encouraging more capital into the UK and fostering more transactions.

The UK needs to reduce the top rate of Income Tax to the 40% that prevailed during most of Labour’s time in office. That would help resolve the issue of doctors’ pay.

The government should implement its planned cuts to tariffs on imports from non EU sources. All components needed for Uk manufacture should be tariff free. All foodstuffs that we are unable to grow for ourselves should also be tariff free.

The UK should expand its freeport strategy and ally them to enterprise zones where it is easy to get permissions and support to base a new or expanding business.

I have always believed and argued that we can be better off economically once we leave the EU. As long as we have the right budget and follow pro growth policies on exit, the UK economy can speed up a bit from its current levels.

Whenever I argue this case the Remain establishment point to past official forecasts saying we will grow more slowly when we leave and ask who am I to gainsay such work. Let me remind you that I have disagreed with official forecasts on three main occasions in the past, and in each case have been right.

The first was the UK joining the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. The official forecasts said it would deliver lower inflation and steady growth. They dared call it a “golden scenario”! I said it would be destabilising, causing boom and bust.  So it proved, bringing about a nasty recession.

The second was the banking crash. I with many others including the Opposition parties in Parliament warned against the excessive debts built up in both the private and public sectors in the UK under Labour from 2005-7. I went on to warn against the actions of government and Central Bank to tighten conditions too drastically in 2008-9 which were bound to undermine the banks and cause a recession. The official forecasts denied there would be a recession until its onset and said the banks had to be taught a lesson. We ended up with a big recession.

The third was during the UK referendum when the government  issued official short term forecasts for the impact of a vote to leave. These said that in the two years after a Leave vote there would be a recession.unemployment would go up sharply and house prices would tumble. I said none of these things would happen. None of them did happen. Employment continued to grow, house prices showed small gains and the economy continued to grow.

Tomorrow I will examine why and how I think we can speed up our growth a bit once we leave the EU. We will have the policy flexibility to promote growth by monetary and fiscal action.

The Remain financial establishment  led by Mr Hammond 2017-19 followed policies which have led to a slowdown in UK growth. It is true there has been a global slowdown led by manufacturing, but that easily forecastable fact should have made them change their policy even more in the direction of promoting growth.

Instead the Bank of England has refused to consider cutting rates or creating more liquidity to  facilitate more jobs and activity, whilst practically every other major Central Bank in the world has eased policy in several ways.  China, France, the USA, India and others have also cut taxes to promote growth.

The UK was right to rein in the excessive public deficits reached at the end of the last decade. A period of retrenchment was unfortunately necessary to avoid loss of confidence and enable a recovery to begin. In the last two years  I  have been pressing for some fiscal and monetary relaxation to prevent the slowdown we are now predictably experiencing. The government led by the new Prime Minister is now taking action to ease the fiscal squeeze , which should help growth in a year’s time when the benefits of the next budget start to flow through.

Brexit allows us to change various policies to allow a faster expansion. Of course it is right to keep in place controls on the debts and deficits to avoid excessive debt build up and loss of confidence that can bring. It is also right to allow enough money to circulate to accommodate growth and to allow people to keep enough of the money they earn so their spending can  fuel some growth.

Brexit also allows us to set out policies that improve the amount of food we grow and process at home, and to rebuild our fishing industry landing more of the catch for home processing and consumption. It allows us to take tariffs down on much needed raw materials, foods and components form non EU sources. Meanwhile according to the Political declaration we will be negotiating a Free Trade deal with the  EU at the same as with other important economies around the world.

Thea Conservative Manifesto sets out £3.195 bn of tax cuts for 2020-21, with an increase in the National Insurance threshold giving a tax cut to 31 million employees at a cost to the revenue of £2.17 billion. Business rate cuts and an enhanced Employment  Allowance make up most of the rest.

There is a rare agreement amidst the noise of this election. All parties agree we need to spend more on mental health services and need to do more to help those with mental health problems.

So let me pose a couple of  questions today. What initiatives nationally would make best use of additional money?  And for those of you living in the Thames Valley, what additional local facilities and staff do we most need?

There are a range of therapies that are used for differing conditions, where experience and practice can refine the approaches to seek to improve the success rate. There are drug treatments for things like depression, where the medics need to be careful not to create a dependence on drugs which becomes a problem in its own right.

I find in many of the unsatisfactory debates about public service it is often nothing other than a bidding war where £1bn is good and £2bn is much better.  Spending the money wisely should be a bigger part of the debate. Indeed we should start with what we need, and then cost it to see when and how we can afford it.

The richest one percent already pay 29% of the total income tax. Parties of the left want people to believe they can expand spending massively by getting the rich to pay more. Evidence abounds that higher rates of tax would raise less money, with more rich people leaving the country to avoid the impositions. The Labour government of the 1970s was famous for presiding over a brain drain, when UK as well as foreign born people left the UK to enjoy their earnings at a lower rate of tax.

The truth is Labour and the Lib Dems would need to increase  tax on the many to pay for their programmes. It is now fashionable to say they would only borrow to invest, so all the extra money they want to spend on the running costs of public services and benefits would need to be matched by tax revenue.

The Lib Dems have said they would put a 1p in the £1 levy on income tax, a rate rise of 5%. They would also increase Capital Gains tax. There would be a frequent flyers tax for travellers. Corporation Tax would also go up.  These measures are unlikely to raise enough to pay for their expensive programme. Labour decline to tell us how they would pay for the tens of billions extra they want to spend on investment, nationalisation and higher spending on public services.  It would clearly take a large  increase in Income Tax to pay for all they have in mind. Their proposals for higher Corporation Tax and higher wealth and higher Income taxes on the well off are unlikely to yield the extra they need.

The public is paying much more tax than ten years ago as the price of getting down the excessive deficit Labour ran up. Now the accounts are under better control it is time to relax a little. It would encourage more growth and more tax revenue to come if the government cut rates. I look forward to the Conservative Manifesto to see what tax cuts they will recommend for the first budget after the election. I will also continue to press for lower rates on income and savings . People should keep more of what they earn and have more to spend on their own priorities.