The outgoing President is using executive (alias prerogative) powers to try to stop many of the main changes Mr Trump wants to make to US policy. He has excelled himself with his intervention with Russia at the very moment Russia brokers a ceasefire in Syria without the US being involved. If he wanted to stand up to Russia he could have chosen a more appropriate time and Russian action to oppose. He is also out to stop cheaper energy and the development of the  US industry.

Imagine the outrage of the establishment if it had been an outgoing President Trump using executive powers in this way. It looks like the swan song of a President who messed up his policy in the Middle  East and was outwitted by Russia most of the time. After years dithering Mr Obama at last knows what he wants to do -thwart his successor.

Like many I was fed up with what the elites of Europe and the USA were serving up during 2016. I was unhappy with the policy of half hearted and erratic military interventions in a war torn Middle East. I was hostile to the austerity policies of the EU, creating mass youth unemployment in many parts of the Eurozone and leaving much of the continent  mired in slow growth or no growth. I disliked the way the UK was dragged into many of the EU policies that were hostile to growth, enterprise and expansion.

2016 for me turned out to be a year which has made so much possible for 2017. It was a year of sharp transition, starting with a Conservative victory in the UK General election, spreading to the Leave vote in the referendum and ending with Mr Trump’s victory in the USA. As yet we have little to show for these momentous decisions by the voters. Next year will see how the change we want pans out. Voters could not have been clearer. We want change.

My main memory of 2016 will be debating endlessly with members of the economic and business establishment, who were united in their disbelief at the attitudes of voters. So many of them could see no alternative to the austerity policies of the Euro, to the military policies pursued for more than a decade in the Middle East, or to the continuing squeeze of the commercial banks which kept growth sluggish at best. They were above all lost in incomprehension about why so many people did not believe their forecasts or their remedies, and why so many of us were so frustrated at the tyranny of their conventional wisdom.

The architects of the Exchange Rate Mechanism collapse and recession did not apologise and learn enough from their mistakes. The architects of the commercial banking collapse amongst the Central Banks and Treasuries of the West did not understand their culpability for the Great Recession, nor did they learn the right lessons from their mistakes. The western co-architects of the Iraq war, the Libyan splintering, the troubles of Afghanistan did not learn from their experiences or come up with a better formula for Syria.

Instead the EU and US elites banded together to lecture the Netherlands on how to vote about Ukraine, the UK on how to vote about Brexit, the US on how to vote down Trump and the Italians on how to back a constitutional reform designed to buttress the government. The people saw through them, and made their feelings clear. That is why I am full of hope for 2017. If the elite cannot learn from past mistakes, it is time for new direction and new people in power.

The latest Asda discretionary income tracker shows continuing good growth in average spending power, despite the recent rise in oil prices and the knock on effects to fuel. Food, clothing and other essentials still show little or no overall inflation, whilst incomes after tax are rising. So far there has been no squeeze on real incomes from a lower pound in the way so many forecasters predicted would happen this winter.

A successful government needs a vision. It also needs to decide which are the main steps it should  take to show progress towards its vision. It can only fight a limited number of battles during a Parliament. It needs to be mindful of the need to keep a majority in the Commons, which usually means not alienating the majority party. When you have a small majority there are even fewer you can afford to alienate. It needs  to keep enough public opinion on side for the specifics as well as for the broader aims. If a good majority of the public buy into the aims, the government has a  bit more leeway over the unpopularity of any particular measure needed to pursue the vision. A government can survive rebellions on its own backbenches where it can attract support from other parties or where the opposition is not united in exploiting the weakness of the governing party.

Some of the individual steps Margaret Thatcher took, like the abolition of the GLC, employment  legislation, the handling of  strikes and the disposition of budgets were highly contentious. Nonetheless she won three elections in a row, with levels of voter support more recent governments have been unable to achieve or sustain. The general strategy of promoting growth, individual responsibility and enterprise, and restoring the reputation of the UK at home and abroad was well supported overall. People said “We know where we stand with her” whether they liked her or not. Government policy was sufficiently predictable and consistent for many to want to follow it and for its opponents to know exactly what they did not like and what they were up against. You could work out many of the detailed policies from understanding the principles behind the strategy, without knowing the detail in advance.

Theresa May has been very clear about her high level vision. She wants to govern in the interests of all, especially raising the living standards of those who work hard but are not well off. She also has stated clearly that she will lead the UK out of the EU in a timely way, commencing with a formal letter of departure before the  end of March 2017. Her aims in the discussions that follow are equally clear. She will take back control of our laws, our borders and our money. She will offer and seek tariff free access to each other’s markets.

All this is vision enough. It is clearer and less divisive than the Coalition’s rhetoric about getting the deficit down and accepting austerity as a necessity for recovery. The issue is, how many steps can be taken for reform, in pursuit of a higher earning, wealthier independent UK?

As always there are plenty of other important topics that government has to deal with that are not central to the overriding aims. Jeremy Hunt wishes to press on with  his transparency revolution in the NHS, seeking to raise standards by greater openness in reporting results and mistakes.  Many want reform of social care, as frustrations grow with the lack of provision in some local authority areas. The government  is keen like its predecessor to make big changes in mental health care. The prisons are crying out for reform. The great welfare revolution with the introduction of universal credit is still incomplete.  Leaving the EU will require new agriculture and fishing policies.

2017 should be a time for the government to concentrate on its two main strategies. The sooner the EU issue is resolved the better. It will reduce uncertainties and boost confidence if it can be done quickly. The new industrial strategy, appropriate tax changes, and other measures to boost productivity, output and therefore  jobs and wages are needed by the Spring budget at the latest. Carry out the first aim and make good progress with the second is the sensible approach, to buy the right for the other reforms that may follow.

The SNP government’s tortured prose stumbled over the contradictions in their position. Maintaining full membership of the EU single market they see as crucial, but  the UK single market is even more important yet they want to leave the UK. They assume they would get full access rights to the rest of the UK market, but that of course in their ideal world would depend on the EU’s arrangements with the UK, not on them. They are happy to put at risk their membership of the market that matters four times as much to them as the EU single market, but not the EU single market. If the EU refuses tariff free trade to the UK, then an ” independent” Scotland staying in the EU has to accept the EU decision.

Even more bizarre is they do not want the UK to get powers back from Brussels which could then be devolved as appropriate to Scotland, but do think the rest of the UK should be willing to devolve even more power to Scotland to allow it to stay in the EU when we leave!

The truth is simple. Scotland voted to stay in the UK. The UK voted to leave the EU. When we leave the EU  major powers of self government will be returned to the UK from the EU. At that point there will of course be a decision to be made about which of these new powers should and can be devolved to Scotland. The rest of the UK will be more sympathetic to any Scottish case to delegate more if Scotland has helped the process of repatriating these powers. If Scotland persists in trying to make Brexit more difficult, it is speaking against more devolution for Scotland. Every power Scotland wishes to concede or leave with the EU in the forthcoming negotiation is a power we cannot share with Scotland, because neither government will possess it.

As I have remarked before, the SNP do not want an independent Scotland. They want a Scotland using the pound, sharing a Head of state with the rest of the UK, having border free access to the rest of the UK, with much of their law being made in the EU. They are truly muddled and not a proper independence movement.As someone who is happy for the Union of the UK to continue, I would find it easier to understand a movement which wanted Scotland out of the UK and out of the EU, with its own currency, Head of State and the rest.

People have often written in to thie site to complain about possible voter fraud. I am pleased to see the various representations made to the government about this has led to today’s announcement of pilots in 2018 of requiring voter ID proof in the local elections  as a prelude for the 2020 General Election.

One of the most mad things in the UK public sector is the continued placing of pipes and cables under main roads, often under the middle of the road. Given the weight of modern traffic the pipes need to be placed quite deep and they have to be robust to withstand the pressures. Every time a repair or replacement is needed the road has to be dug up. It either has to be closed completely, or a lane taken out to do the work. The workmen have to watch out, where traffic is maintained on a portion of the road.

I am having another push to get the government to encourage or require a new approach. Pipes and cables can be placed in conduits or larger pipes which can be placed under pavements or verges, away from the main carriageway. There can be locked access points to the cables and pipes at regular intervals, obviating the need to dig anything up again. Access to the cables and pipes can be achieved for remote devices. New pipes and cables can be threaded through from the access points and old ones removed at will.

This should be mandatory for all new housing estates, commercial developments and roads being installed. It could also be required for all replacements of existing utilities, which is a regular occurrence given the need for larger pipes and cables as demand expands for these services.

I have talked to representatives of the utilities who expressed some sympathy for this view, but not enough to persuade them to do it as a matter of routine without government instruction or encouragement. Councils too have an important role to play as the planning and highways authorities most affected by the road disruption utility works cause. The companies will also find if they adopt this customer friendly approach they will lose an important source of friction with local communities who are often critical of the delays utility works inflict.

One of the possible attractions of a Trump presidency is a change for the better in policy towards the Middle East.

Mr Obama was disappointing. He promised a new approach based on diplomacy and peace seeking, only to revert to a clumsy and often ineffectual strategy of military intervention. He promised withdrawal of troops but settled for increasing military activity for a limited period. His time in office was characterised by reluctant interventions, prevarications, and issuing threats which he did not carry out. It made a bad situation worse. He came to see Russia as an adversary, but lost out  to Russia when it came to influencing events particularly in Syria.

Mr Trump has suggested doing business with Russia, accepting the power reality that Russia has important regional allies in the area and has a strong military presence in  Syria buttressed by Iran. It would be good if these two main powers could come to some agreement about what is best for Syria and the other troubled countries, and worked together to assist regional powers in returning more parts of the middle East to peace. Until talking takes over from bombing we will face an ever plentiful supply of refugees and migrants seeking a bettter life. In turn the loss of talent from these countries will make achieving  eventual economic recovery when peace is established that much more difficult.

Mr Trump’ s strategy of developing more US domestic energy will make the US less concerned about the energy resources of the region and place him in a stronger position globally. I hope he will take advice to help reduce the arms race and the splitting of countries like Syria into ever more violent factions. We have had years of the war on terror, years of arming various groups that might become extreme themselves or might end up in alliance with or subjugated by extremists. Supplying more and more weapons and training  to more and more groups has not worked. Trying to find the perfect democratic model for government has often led to a breakdown in law and order instead.

It does look as if Mr Trump wants to effect major change in much of what US government does. He should start  by looking at policy towards the middle East, which has been so unsuccessful for the last decade. The UK too should understand the tectonic plates of world politics are shifting, and should reappraise its stance on Syria and the wider Middle east.

A happy Christmas to all my readers.

There will be no other message today  but feel free to write in as usual if you wish.

Normal service tomorrow.

I see advocates of UK military intervention in Syria are using the media to claim we should have intervened more  by deploying substantial force. They  accuse those of us who said no to more force being used of helping create the recapture of Aleppo by Assad.

When we had the debate in 2013 it was no part of my case that Syria would have a peaceful and happy future without our intervention. It was simply to argue that our intervention might do more harm than good. As most people in the UK did not want either Assad or ISIL to win and they were the two combatants it was difficult to see how we could intervene successfully. Surely you only bomb and fight in someone else’s country if you have a legal right and think you can make things better by doing so?

Those who think our intervention in 2013 could have solved the problem need to explain how they could have swept away all the evil forces in Syria and created a peaceful and democratic government. Whilst arguing this they need to explain why our military intervention in Libya did not bring this about there, and why there is still serious fighting in Iraq.