Yesterday we had a moving and important debate in the House about the rise of anti Semitism in the UK. Most of us agreed that it is a nasty racism which no-one in a decent democracy should have to confront. James Brokenshire made a powerful speech for the government setting out how we must all take action to prevent it. The Labour spokesman Barry Gardiner apologised to the Jewish community on behalf of the Labour party and confessed that there has been a strand of virulent anti Semitism within Labour that they need to control. He spoke with passion and feeling.

The new Independent grouping of Labour MPs were well represented. They gave good support to Luciana Berger who catalogued the abuse she has faced from Labour party members and social media for her Jewish ancestry. Another group of active Labour MPs sitting on the two back benches behind their Shadow Spokesman also delivered powerful asides and interventions, demanding that their party did more than just offer an apology but tackled the backlog of cases that have been referred to the National Executive alleging anti Semitism. They showed considerable sympathy for their former colleagues and expressed similar feelings. They were keen to see the expulsion of Derek Hatton, recently admitted to the Labour party again.

Into this emotional rift came the resignations of three Conservative MPs from the Conservative party. They too wish to be seen as independent, though it is not clear they are the same kind of independent as the Labour group. Their reasons seemed somewhat different to the Labour explanations given the day before. They have yet to articulate exactly what they want to stand for, or why they have moved away from the 2017 Conservative Manifesto with its clear pledge to leave the EU and its customs union and single market in order to  fulfil the mandate of the EU referendum. They say in general terms they object to the very Brexit which helped get the Conservatives elected, and that they think the modernising agenda has been overthrown. They also dislike austerity, which ironically came from the modernisers David Cameron and George Osborne that they professed to like.

The Labour independents have said they are not forming a new party and will not be contesting elections. The polling assuming they would shows them capturing just 14% of the vote, mainly at the expense of Labour who go down to 28%, and squeezing the Liberal Democrats down to 7%.  The sense from yesterday is the main reason they have split from Labour is one of attitude and tone from the leadership. They dislike Mr Corbyn and dislike the intolerance they find in the party. Others might follow them judging by the reactions of some other Labour MPs during the debate.

The Conservative party will come together again as soon as we are out of the EU. It has been the delay in our exit for 2 years 9 months that has allowed the argument about how and when  we leave to fester. The Labour party has deeper seated disagreements within it which pose a problem for the leadership. At Prime Minister’s Question time neither leader wanted to mention the difficult topic of defections.

Honda’s market share has fallen a long way in recent years in Europe. From selling 311,000 cars at the peak in 2007, last year it sold just 136,000.  The Swindon plant is only running one of the two lines, and at under 150,000 cars a year it is a small plant by world standards. Honda Europe is one of the casualties of the top down electrification policy pursued by the EU and UK governments. As Honda explained :

“This is not a Brexit related issue for us. This decision has been made on the basis of global issues. We have to move very swiftly to electrification of vehicles, because of demand of our customers and legislation”.

Honda wishes to concentrate its investments in large plants making modern vehicles that meet changing legislation in the places where they sell most cars. That is Asia and the USA, not Europe, where their market share is now small. This is one example of the massive change being forced on the industry by governments with their requirement to sell many more electric vehicles. It is interesting that Honda mentioned legislation as an important factor, underlining that this abrupt change in the profile of cars to be sold results from a top down instruction from legislators as well as from some customers having a genuine preference for electric vehicles.

It follows hard on the heels of Nissan’s decision to make one of its diesel cars only in Japan without adding  a UK line , given the big drop off in demand following adverse legislation and threats of more to come from government. Nissan does have decent overall  volumes in the UK and is committed to further investment in its UK business.

I forecast particular difficulties for the UK car industry in 2017 when the  Bank of England adopted a tough stance on car loans, and the government  launched a tax attack on new vehicles whilst  pursuing an anti diesel policy. This was particularly damaging to the UK based car industry which had built centres of excellence for clean diesel engine technology here in the UK with government encouragement. Investment in car production is a long term business. The big switch in UK government attitudes to diesels will have a price that goes beyond its obvious impact on the large section of our car industry that makes diesel cars. Companies  want consistent support for the industry and a predictable legislative and tax background, whether they are making diesel or petrol vehicles.

I trust the government will explore alternative uses for the Honda factory and work for the workforce. It could get a contractor that supplies vehicles to the state and or does deep maintenance on  public sector vehicles to undertake it there, for example.

I am deleting contributions  to the site  that wrongly ascribe the planned closure of Honda Swindon to Brexit given the very clear statements made by Honda that is about other matters. I will comment in more detail tomorrow.

The workforce at Swindon is skilled and capable, and I wish to see the government and Council offer all the help they can to ensure that in the run up to closure good jobs are found to replace the lost Honda jobs.

Seven Labour MPs resigned from their party in protest over its anti Semitism and general attitudes. Several of them might not have been re selected as Labour candidates, such is the gap between their thinking and that of their former party’s leadership. None of them intend to put their new attitudes and affiliations to the test of the electorate in a by election. So far they are not saying they are forming a new party, and there are no current plans to put up Council candidates in May or put up a candidate to  fight a Parliamentary by election when there is vacancy.

Their policy platform is also so far unclear. They come from the Blairite pro EU wing of the Labour party, but did not wish to play up support for a second referendum. Perhaps they grasped that that is not a very popular idea, and does not look very democratic. They were wishing to annex the idea of democracy to themselves, but would have some problem in explaining why they reject the biggest vote in our history when the people answered  the question Leave or Remain on promise of Parliament implementing the decision.  They said they did not wish to join the Liberal Democrats who showed that having as your main distinctive policy  overturning  the referendum on the EU commanded only 10% support in the last general Election.

UK politics has been substantially changed by the Brexit vote. It led to the two main parties defying the trend in the UK from 2010, and the trend on the continent, of  declining vote shares for the two traditional left of centre and right of centre parties. Labour and Conservative together leapt up to 82% of the vote at a time when on the continent the two traditional parties in most countries is  now well below 50% together and in some cases as in France down to under 20%. Labour gained votes by moving leftwards whilst saying they would implement Brexit, Conservatives gained votes by pledging we will leave the EU. The election did not show a large demand for a new party pro the EU along Lib Dem or Blairite lines.

UK politics this year will be about Brexit. Both main parties have to assist it or suffer electorally if they do not. Both promised voters they would implement the referendum, and both said they wanted an independent trade policy for the UK which means leaving the customs union. The Independent Group wisely avoided making Brexit the main point of their break from Labour, as they would be putting themselves in a difficult and unpopular position if that is their main grudge. They were after all  willing to stand for election on a pro Brexit ticket in 2017. They also need differences that will last longer than the time to our departing the EU. So far they struggle to define them, but doubtless will do more to set them out in the weeks ahead. The biggest point of difference they highlighted is one of tone and approach to people, with their plea for a kinder more inclusive type of politics than they find in the modern Labour party.

Being the UK’s Single Market Minister during an intense period of EU legislating when they said they were “completing”the single market turned me from a mild sceptic to a strong critic of the undemocratic approach of the EU. It was quite clear watching and listening to the EU officials during that period that their aim was to take more and more powers of self determination away from member states in the name of the single market. All you needed for a sigle market was the rule that a product of merchandisable quality in one country could be offered for sale in another with suitable labels.

They had a doctrine of the occupied field. Everytime they put forward a regulation or Directive in a new area it meant they established competence or power over that area. Quite often the first piece of legislation did little and was unexceptional. The reason was they merely wanted to capture the jurisdiction without at first using the power in ways that alarmed or upset. That came later, once competence was established.

My job was offen a negative one. The UK government wanted the single market, but also often wanted to resist bad or needless legislation in its name. It was also the case that often the draft regulation was based on a Franco German way of conducting business, and not on a UK way where that was different. I then had to argue for a change of draft to stop UK businesses being made to change their model or being declared illegal.

All this should worry the present government about the Withdrawal agreement. If the UK signed that as currently drafted there would be no UK vote, voice or veto on any law the EU wanted to pass in all the areas of its competence. That means that every business sector and company in the UK would face a prolonged period when the EU might deliberately or inadvertently legislate in ways that damaged their business models with us being unable to stop them.

Why don’t the UK business bodies raise this issue? Why don’t they raise the problems for our car industry created by the attack on diesels, car loans and the costs of purchase? UK industry has suffered from past EU regulations and taxes, and could be made to suffer more.

The UK stands on the threshold of being able to lead the movement for freer trade worldwide. If we leave the EU in March we can pioneer new trade deals around the globe. Japan and others would like us to join the TPP, a vast free trade area in fast growing Asia. Australia and New Zealand, Singapore and South Korea, Canada and Japan would all like closer trade relationships than we have enjoyed as members of the EU.

The big issue is how the west relates to China. The world is witnessing a bruising encounter between the USA and China over many trade issues. The USA wants China to remove some of its many tariff barriers. It wants China to allow more inward investment without requiring joint venture partners and technology sharing. It wants a better enforcement of intellectual property rights in China. It wants more action by the Chinese to reduce over capacity and participate more as importers as well as exporters in the world trading system.

The UK should have a place in these debates, and will be able to once we are out of the EU. The UK too would benefit from more open markets in China, and from the removal of more tariff and non tariff barriers to trade by Beijing. The UK is helpful to China as she builds a large banking and financial service industry, with London playing a leading role in the international development of Chinese finance.

Many of us who voted Leave have a global perspective. Recognising the strong logic of numbers, this is the Asian century. Our trade with the EU will naturally diminish as a proportion of the total whether we are in or out of the EU. Our trade with Asia will grow. The issue is how quickly our Asian trade will increase, and how enthusiastic will we be about this development. Now is a good time to be a free trade advocate, and to get involved in TPP and Chinese trade relations. We can be a force for the good, for greater prosperity and more open markets.

It is long past the time when the UK government should publish its tariff schedule for April 2019. This too offers an opportunity to lower the EU tariff schedule we currently use, whilst keeping some bargaining power for future trade deals to eliminate more tariffs. If they see our tariff schedule it might also cement EU enthusiasm for tariff free trade with us.

This week the same MPs who look down on Leave supporters and want to dilute or defeat the decision of UK voters to exit the EU were repeating the same tired lies of Project Fear. This was the case put to voters which lost the referendum. They seem to think that all we “stupid” Leave MPs will get it in the end and change our mind about Brexit. Apparently if you shout the same false forecasts and ignorance about how trade works for long enough the country will decide to stay in the customs union and single market, and maybe in the whole EU.

These MPs perpetuate the myth that WTO trade without a customs union cannot work. They seem to think tariffs will have to be paid at the ports with lorry drivers carrying wallets of fivers as if computers and electronic manifests had not been invented. They do not recognise that complex Just in time supply chains already accommodate non EU components and supplies coming in under WTO rules with EU tariffs.They do not seem to acknowledge the substantial friction of EU UK trade, with VAT, customs,currency change, anti terrorism and anti smuggling checks at or away from borders, and with the need to complete a complex Intrastat declaration.

The government proposed a contradiction on Thursday. The Minister said leaving without a deal remains a possibility, as the law says. Yet the government motion said they were taking no deal off the table! That is why many MPs abstained, as we saw no point in voting for such a contradictory and inaccurate motion. Many abstaining MPs agreed with the part of the motion that supported trying to get a better deal from the EU and made clear their support for that.

The Prime Minister needs to press the EU for a better deal and return with that to the Commons in due course if she wishes to reverse the big defeat the Withdrawal Agreement suffered. I agree with her long held line in the election and afterwards that No deal is better than a bad deal. The Withdrawal Agreement is a bad deal. It would need a lot of improvement to persuade me to like it, as I have set out before. It’s not just a case of tweaking the backstop.

Leaving without signing it takes back control of our laws, our money, our borders and our fish. It is what we voted for. We have had 2 years eight months to prepare for leaving, and the government has said we will be ready. The government has said they are not going to block our ports or create new delays at the border, so our imports will flow as before.

I want to see them table a Free Trade Agreement so we do not have to impose tariffs and any other new barriers to trade, and to expedite a managed WTO exit in March. The sooner they do this the better. They should also publish a schedule of tariffs for March 30 so the EU can see what not agreeing to talks on a Free Trade deal looks like. I would have thought they would prefer tariff free to continue.

For all those who like to explain movements of the pound on the basis of Brexit news, they should be saying today the pound rose because Parliament voted to keep no deal on the table. The pound is stronger now than before the vote.

As regular readers will know, I think the pound’s movements are usually the result of other economic and market forces.

The topic of student loans and student debt is back on the agenda. There is wide dissatisfaction with the current system. Students worry that they are asked to pay too much and borrow too much. Universities worry that some course fees do not cover the costs of providing a good education. The public debate worries about access to higher education for students from lower income backgrounds, and about the value of some courses to a person’s life chances.

I am a fellow of an Oxford College drawing no salary. The College is a research institution financed from Endowment income. It has no students and no fee income so I am not conflicted or pursuing self interest in this matter.

The case for the student loan system initiated by Labour and extended by the Conservative/Lib Dem Coalition government was straightforward. Going to loans allowed universities to expand and more students to attend. A grant based system implied rationing as there were limits to the amount of state cash allocated to this service. Universities themselves would decide how many places to offer and set entry requirements. The system as a whole would supply money and a place for anyone wanting to go who met a university’s standards. The taxpayer was let off paying grants. In some cases lower income taxpayers without the benefit of a degree had to pay more tax to give a grant to someone would go on to earn many times their income, which was generally thought unfair.

The problems of the loan scheme were also well understood. Many students would not repay them, leaving taxpayers with the debt after all. Graduates with a large debt might feel constrained about buying a home or building their own business as they had already borrowed a lot. Some people would be put off going to university, not liking the idea of starting adult life with a big debt.

There were attempted fixes for some of these problems. People from lower income backgrounds can apply for access funds or scholarships, so they can borrow less and still pay the bills. In an attempt to cut taxpayer costs from non repayers the interest charge was set high. The successful and honest ex students are asked to pay more to cover some of the costs of those who never earn enough to repay or of those who leave the country to try to walk away from their debt.

Reform is the air, with both Labour and Conservative wanting to move to lower fees or no fees. Replacing the whole system with grants would be very expensive and raises the issue of state rationing again. Cutting the maximum fee will curtail universities and militate against more dearer courses in science which require expensive facilities and more intensive teaching.

Offering more scholarships to lower income students might be a better way forward, with scope for government and universities to negotiate over how many and who pays. Universities do provide access funds, and many are building endowments with independent financial capacity to help students.

The provision of university places is not a proper market. There is a fee cap, which means they all tend to charge the same maximum permitted, whilst there does have to be a system of rejecting some who want the service but are not qualified to benefit. Just as under the state financed system that went before, there is a market for talent where the brighest and best qualified tend to go to the universities that come out highest in league tables, thereby reinforcing their positions.

Yesterday came the expected good news that headline inflation is below the 2% target. Core inflation has been below target since June 2018. Meanwhile wage growth is around 3%, so real wages are now rising. People can look forward to having more to spend as their pay goes up.

The Bank of England has been changing its mind about all this. In a past good lecture the Governor argued that there is no longer a simple trade off between lower unemployment and higher inflation. The so called Phillips curve suggested that if unemployment fell wages started to go up faster, leading to price inflation and the need for the authorities to rein things in. Revision to this pointed out that in a modern open trading economy like the UK prices are held down by global competition, and wages by inflows of migrants and by importing labour intensive goods and services from lower wage countries. In his most recent speech the Governor has rowed back a bit on this sensible observation. He claims that there is once again a modest trade off between lower unemployment and higher wages, and that therefore the Bank will need to tighten further to control prices in the months ahead.

I do not agree. It is true wages have been going up faster in the last year, but there is no evidence this is flowing through to prices which remain under the cosh of global competition. In part wages have gone up through the introduction of the Living Wage, in part through cost push pressures in areas of the economy like care homes where recruitment has been difficult. The danger is lifting interest rates too far too fast will plunge us into a downturn. There is too little money and credit about as it is, given the Bank’s tightening policy. The Governor does at least acknowledged that he has deliberately tightened policy over the last year.
It is time he said job done. The Fed has been more magnanimous in saying they have tightened enough. The Bank of England should also say this more clearly, and work to ensure a decent supply of credit to households and businesses. As The Governor argued convincingly there is no debt problem in either the public or banking sectors in the UK. With China slowing and the Eurozone stalling we need a positive policy in the UK. With inflation under target now is a good time to promote growth and allow people to buy more cars and invest more in property and business.