On Monday I went to the annual City debate at the Mansion House. I was asked to debate the motion that “normalising” interest rates will cause the next financial crash. I spoke against the motion. A copy of my slides are available here: Returning to normal.14.02.14.

When a vote was taken before the debate 52% agreed with me in opposing the motion. By the end of the debate that had risen to 63%. Why did the pessimists lose?

I made two central claims. The first is the new “normal” on interest rates in the UK, US and the Euro area is not going to be very high rates like the 1970s and 1980s, nor even 5% rates like the last decade. As the Central Banks have made clear, their aim is to live with ultra low rates for a year or more from today. They plan to follow this with rates at around 2-3% thereafter, if the economies have continued to recover and are looking better. If not they will continue with abnormal monetary measures.

The second is there is no evidence of bubble type conditions in the US, UK or Euroland today.

When the Japanese bubble burst at the end of the 1980s, real estate values had reached higher than £40,000 a square foot in Tokyo and shares were selling on 100 times their earnings per share. Shares fell by three quarters, and property values fell by 90% when the bubble exploded.

When the banking systems of Ireland, Greece and Cyprus imploded debt levels and bank gearing were much higher than today. RBS has more than doubled its capital relative to its loans since the crisis.

Today in the UK property is a few hundred pounds a square foot rising to a maximum of £5000 a square foot in a few prestigious parts of central London where foreign buyers in the main pay large sums in cash for the privilege of owning. Shares are selling below their long term average, around 13 times earnings per share. Average house prices have risen 3% over the last year and real house prices are still below the peak of 2007-8.

In order to have a traditional boom/bust cycle like the UK 2000-2009 or the UK 1970-77 you would need much more extended bank debt and asset prices in the boom phase, followed by much tougher future monetary action than the current Bank has in mind. The Central banks seem to have learned from the mess they created in 2005-9. The new normal will be lower rates than before, whilst the current weak state of money growth means most asset prices are far from the bubble levels of Tokyo in 1989 or New York in 2000.

Archbishop Nichols has recently claimed that “the basic safety net” of welfare has been “torn apart”. Has the Archbishop read any of the statements from DWP, or studied the figures from the Treasury?

If he did so he would find that welfare spending has gone up under this governemnt, despite the substantial rise in the number of people in work, the best kind of welfare. Total welfare and state pensions spending is up by more than £26 billion a year. Welfare spending excluding penions and Jobseekers is up in real terms 2010-2014. The total spend is over £220 billion, and the welfare spend on people of working age is £94 billion. How does this amount to the end of the safety net?

It is disappointing that people in positions of authority who have benefitted from a good education should be so sloppy with their words and so remiss not to read the numbers. If the Archbishop has some better way to spend the £220 billion then that could be a useful contribution to the debate. If he really believes that spending a few million more than the £220 billion could make a lot of difference he should tell us how and why.

What is so frustrating about his type of comment is it gets a lot of airtime for a complete misrepresentation of what the government is trying to do and what it is actually doing. The government – like Labour before it – wants people in a relatively rich country to be able to live to a decent standard. It wants to help those with state money who cannot help themselves. It wants to encourage and assist more people into work so they can enjoy a better living standard without claiming on their neighbours, the taxpayers.

It is both false to imply the government wants people to suffer, and false to assume there is a further large pot of money which the state mysteriously can posses which it could spend to better effect than the £220 billion a year it is already spending.

It would be helpful if clergy gave better and clearer moral guidance to us and to their Churches on the big moral issues that come up in Parliament. If they have good ideas on welfare reform then they should state them with the detail to back them up. It would also be interesting to hear how much of the wealth of the Church, accumulated over the centuries, the Archbishop thinks they should share with the poor. They might also like to comment on their view of equal opportunities for women and the role of women in the workplace.

Mr Miliband’s latest purple prose has suggested that global warming, now called climate change, is the cause of the recent floods. He deduces from this that the UK needs to do much more to arrest the output of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Let me annoy many of you and suppose that Mr Miliband is right – that CO2 does warm the climate, that man made CO2 is the key part of that process, and that this has directly caused the recent floods. Many of you disagree with one or more of these steps in the argument, I know.

He should still ask himself if the UK cutting its CO2 output more is going to stop such floods in the future? I cannot for one moment see how that can be true. The UK’s role in total world CO2 is small. If we take yet more action to make energy dearer and scarcer here, we will simply import more energy intensive goods from elsewhere. The amount of fossil fuel energy burned worldwide will not be reduced, even if the UK stopped burning all fossil fuels over say the next twenty years.

This weekend a climate scientist made clear that the recent bad weather in the UK has been caused by the position of the jet stream. He has stated that “there is no evidence that global warming can cause the jet stream to get stuck in the way it has this winter”. Others have reminded us that this wet winter is no wetter than some other winters over the last 250 years, and is not the wettest on record.

I will agree with Mr Miliband on one important thing. We do need a new consensus about doing more in the UK to give ourselves resilience against wet weather. It would be a good idea to build into that more resilience against hot weather as well, in case we break out of the recent run of cool wet summers and have a hot dry one for a change. We need to store more of the water when it does fall as rain, and direct more of the water away from homes and farms into reservoirs, aquifers, and into rivers and the sea in manageable ways. Surely we could all agree on that, whatever our views on the global question of warming and CO2?

Mr Salmond’s idea of independence is less brave heart, more weak knees. He wants to go cap in hand to the EU and the Bank of England to seek dependence. It always struck me as an odd vision. If you want independence, why not have your own currency and be your own boss? It was amusing to see the EU in the person of Mr Barroso upset the Scottish nationalists, after the EU has done so much to help “regional identities” like Scotland through their active promotion of a Europe of the regions.

Mr Barroso in a way was just stating the obvious. If Scotland becomes “independent” in the very dependent way Mr Salmond has in mind, they will need to apply to the EU to regain their continued dependence on the EU. Of course Scotland would cease to be a member of the EU by virtue of being part of the UK. Of course it will require the consent of all the other member states to Scotland’s admission in her own right.

Mr Barroso may be wrong in thinking other member states would want to block Scotland. The rest of the UK would have no wish to stop Scotland joining. Mr Barroso thinks Spain might wish to do so. It would be best to ask Spain that question so we can all know the definitive answer.

But what we do all know is that any Scottish membership will require negotiating. Scotland will have no automatic right to the special terms the UK currently has. Why should Scotland be let off joining the Euro, a requirement on other new members? Would Scotland have different arrangements on borders and Home affairs as the UK currently does? Why should Scotland enjoy any contributions rebate in the way the UK does? Scotland will have to negotiate how many votes she would enjoy in Council meetings, what her budget contribution would have to be, and how many seats she would retain in the European Parliament. This would all take time and may not give Scotland the deal she wants.

The rest of the UK would also need to negotiate a new membership, unless we have already voted to leave. Whilst the rest of the UK “inherits” the UK membership I presume the EU would want to use the excuse to seek to renegotiate our membership from their point of view. The number of MEPs would have to be reduced. The number of votes in Council would presumably be subject to a reduction. The rest of the UK would want a lower financial contribution, and would need to see off moves to reduce the rebate further. Eurosceptics want a new relationship anyway, so Scotland leaving might just be an added complication to a negotiation that is underway or going to happen.

PS I disagree with the notion that if Scotland votes for Out of the UK they might not be able to negotiate out. I think we should very clearly honour the intention of the Scottish people in their referendum. We should respect and implement the result either way, however narrow the margin.

Labour did well in the by election. The top line score is a convincing Labour win on an 11% swing from the Conservatives. The Lib Dems suffered the biggest drop in their vote, followed by the Conservatives. UKIP picked up votes but ended a very poor second to Labour who were 37.4% of the votes cast clear of them, and who won an overall majority of the votes cast.

The losing parties can point out that turnout was well down on the General Election at just 28,17%. They can also compliment Labour on having a much better organised postal votes campaign than the other parties. Labour won the seat on being able to get its core vote to send in a postal ballot, just as the Lib Dems did in Eastleigh where the margin over UKIP was much narrower. They can remind people that governing parties often lose by elections on big swings, but also can go on to win the succeeding General Election.

So can we deduce anything about a future General Election from this? Not a lot. It reminds us that Labour are polling much better than in 2010. It underlines how the Eurosceptic side of the argument remains very split.

This message is reinforced by the latest poll for the European elections. That shows Labour top at just 35%, the Conservatives in second at 25% and UKIP third on 20%. This illustrates that there are quite enough Eurosceptic votes to win an election, but not all the time they remain split between two contenders. To those UKIP supporters who will now write in to deny that the Conservatives are Eurosceptic I would remind you I disagree. I would also point out if the Conservatives are not Eurosceptic then you have a lost cause, with only 20% of the voters wanting a Eurosceptic option.

For the General election the polls continue to show Labour ahead, with the Conservatives as the challengers. As we approach the election people will have to make a simple choice. Would they rather have Mr Miliband or Mr Cameron leading the country. Those who say neither can vote as they choose, but it does not look as if they will get their way.

I asked the government this question earlier in this Parliament. There was no clear answer. It is becoming a more important question, as the Scottish government challenges the Union from within, and the European Union challenges it from without. It is especially important given the wish of the EU and its supporters to deny the very existence of England, as they seek to balkanise into regions with no resonance.

The Cabinet contains the nucleus of an English government. The Secretaries of State for Education, Health, the Environment, Communities and local government, and Transport are English Ministers, not Ministers of the Union. Their functions outside England are the responsibility of devolved governments. Parts of Culture Media and Sport are also devolved. It would be helpful if the word English was more commonly used to describe their remits and duties.

The UK Parliament contains a majority of English MPs. Many of us would like to see the proposal enforced that only English MPs should in future vote on English matters. Some nationalist MPs agree and usually absent themselves from votes on English education or health, seeing that they have no interest or constituency knowledge in these matters.

I see the Westminster Parliament as both the Parliament of the Union and the Parliament of England. I do not wish to see another expensive group of politicians elected to some new expensive building for a different English Parliament. I do want our Cabinet Ministers to be explicitly English in their words and work, and do want English MPs to stand up for England , with us debating and voting on these matters within the Westminster building.

The Prime Minister rightly reassured people experiencing floods that the costs of helping them during the crisis will not be subject to some arbitrary cash limit.The government does not wish to ration sandbags or fail to help rescue people stranded and in distress.

Much of the cost of responding to the floods is already catered for in current budgets. It is a case of switching Environment Agency staff, police, fire and military personnel from other duties to flood work. They will be paid the salaries that have been in budgets for sometime. Of course the government will need to raid the contingency fund or the underspends against the 2013-14 budget to pay for some additional costs. These include the extra sandbags, the purchase or hiring of extra pumps and barriers, the private sector contractors who may be used to assist the emergency services, any extra pay for overtime for public sector employees and the additional expenses some staff will incur as they try to work in difficult conditions away from their normal base.

The question of who pays for the repairs once the waters have subsided is a different one. Most of the damage will be to homes. These are mainly insured by their owners. The government has offered to work alongside the insurance companies to help ensure fair and speedy settlement of claims to get the work done and people back to normal as soon as it is possible to do so. Business premises too will usually be insured.

Businesses and farms will also have suffered loss of income which may well not be an insured risk. The government has made some more money available for farmers immediately, and will doubtless look at what help could be offered to other businesses brought low by the inability to trade for a period. It has asked the banks to be helpful to businesses, and has announced favourable tax payment terms for affected businesses.

The bigger financial question will be which schemes should be brought forward or developed for the future to give more parts of the country more protection against future floods. A fundamental rethink of the Environment Agency’s large £1200 million budget would be a good place to start. There may need to be some additional financial provision from government capital budgets in future years, which can be achieved by altering current priorities. This should be allied to new thinking on either preventing more new building on floodplain or requiring works to handle the additional water that leave the position better, not worse, than before the development.Some of the recent anti flood investments have paid off and have protected homes. We need to find more schemes which can protect those places which have suffered badly this time.

I fully support Mr Osborne’s stance that a single currency between the rest of the UK and an “independent” Scotland would not work. It is bizarre that Mr Salmond calls this “bullying”. Mr Salmond has to accept that if he succeeds in winning a vote to leave, it is then a matter for the rest of the UK and not for him how we negotiate the final settlement from our side.

Indeed, warning Scotland not to opt to be part of the pound is right for Scotland as well as for the rest of the UK. What part of the sorry experiences of Cyprus, Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland and Italy has Mr Salmond not understood? We have before our eyes the results of currency union without fiscal union, without discipline over borrowings, and without proper levels of transfers from rich to poor in the Euro area. Why would anyone want to recommend to the Scots being in a currency union where they had no influence over the monetary policy and where there was no common fiscal policy?

Mr Salmond now retaliates by the most unpleasant threat that Scotland would walk away from the Union without taking its share of the debt. British fair play and commonsense argues that of course Scotland has to take its share of the debt, as it enjoyed helping us spend the money. Scotland should remember that if they try that tactic, there are plenty of ways the rest of the UK can also negotiate forcefully.

How much of the oil belongs to the rest of the UK rather than Scotland? How do you draw the border out from the coast into the North Sea? Why shouldn’t Scotland assume full responsibility for the debts of RBS? What charges would the rest of the UK levy for Scots using rest of the Uk facilities?

The more Mr Salmond hits out, the more he needs to understand that the rest of the UK will harden its attitude to the negotiation. Many people in the rest of the UK are with the Prime Minister in wanting the Scots to remain, keeping our country united. If the Scots vote for Out, the mood will change. Then the rest of the UK, rejected by the Scots, will want their politicians to do a great deal for those of us who remain in the union.

Most people in the rest of the UK do not see the union as a simple commercial transaction. We are not constantly adding up how much we pay in tax and comparing it with what we get back. There are other parts of the UK who get a worse financial deal than Scotland, who accept that is part of belonging to union with others.

If quangos are not really independent and do have in the end to accept some accountability to people and Parliament, how should the relationship between Ministers and quangos be conducted?

When I was a  Minister with quangos reporting to me I defined my roles as:

1. Establishing aims and requirements for the Agency in accordance with their Statute

2.  Settling budgets with the Agency

3. Reviewing and influencing their policies to achieve their aims

4. Monitoring and reviewing their performance

5. Acting as the customer and taxpayer voice as they were usually monopolies

To do this I established a pattern of review meetings with Chairmen and Chief Executives. The minimum annual requirement was a budget meeting to discuss the following year’s total spending and sources of income, and a Corporate Plan Review meeting to discuss aims, achievements  and performance.

I would conduct my own review of their requests of increases in fees and charges, as often a quango that thought the grant settlement was too mean would simply carry on spending and aim to send the bill to the captive customers. I was there to represent them to the Treasury if there was a good case for them to receive more grant in aid. I usually found that they had generous budgets and what was needed was better financial management to achieve higher value for money.

I found that where I had some professional expertise based on past employment and training I was more likely to be more involved in the detail of  the quango in our private exchanges. I was responsible  for a period for the financial regulators of all the non banks, where it was possible as Minister to have productive discussions about what we were trying to do and how you could best achieve it. Where a quango dealt with something like food science where I have no qualifications I had to take the professional judgements on trust, though could and did still ask questions to expose any inconsisencies, poor performance or areas where professional judgements were divided.

The truth is quangos spend a lot of public money. They have a surrogate tax power in the case of the monopoly regulators. Their independence is subject to Parliament and Ministers telling them their aims and deciding how much they can spend. Ministers therefore need to review them closely, demand improvements, and change managements if they start to fail.

I have been asked to debate the flooding problems with George Monbiot on Sky tv (10.20am). I thought I would look up some of his views.

In 2006 he wrote a book called “Heat: How to stop the planet burning”. This stated that “our rivers are starting to run  dry.” He forecast global warming, which in turn would lead to more “drought events”.

His book of course was about the world as a whole. It was not confined to the UK. It was about a longer time horizon than a few years.  Clearly it has little relevance to today’s big issue in the UK of the floods. Our rivers are bursting their banks. We are told that it was the middle of the eighteenth century when we last had this much rain. The Environment Agency reminds us that in 1919 more of the Somerset levels were drowned than today. We must assume  that the eighteenth century was not a time of man made global warming and 1919 was well before the big global  build up of CO2. I understand that recent cold snow filled winters in the UK or this year in the USA do not  disprove the global warming theory, but nor do they help give people confidence in its shorter term predictive abiliites.

More recently, in November,  the Met Office told us  there might be “drier than normal conditions across the country” December to February. “The weakening of the prevailing westerly flow means that the normally wetter western or north western parts of the country may see a significant reduction in precipitation compared to average…”  They did preface this by telling us they had low confidence in their forecast, as it is very difficult  to do. It serves to remind us all how difficult it is to forecast weather for a month of two’s time, let alone over a period of decades, even with very powerful computers and plenty of instruments to read conditions.

I hope tomorrow that Mr Monbiot will grasp that many members of the public do not wish people to be ideological about all this. Every sensible person accepts two things. Firstly the climate is often changing. Secondly it is extremely difficult for man to predict and control how it will change, as it is subject to many differing forces. Man has no power over the sun, volcanic activity, the jet stream  or the pattern of water vapour in the atmosphere. It is equally difficult for people in rich countries to tell poorer countries with much larger populations to avoid burning the larger amounts of energy we did to grow richer.

What people do expect in an advanced country like the UK is that their governments and Environment Agency should do all they can to handle surplus water when it does rain too much, and to store enough water for use when it does not rain enough. As our population keeps growing we need to do  more on flood defence, as more people and homes can cause more water problems. We also need to put in more clean water capacity. We have to adjust to the climate as it changes, and to the extra requirements imposed by a rising population.

If Mr Monbiot is right with his theory, he has to persuade China to use less energy and tell Germany to stop burning all that lignite, amongst the larger problems. I somehow do not see him succeeding with that difficult task.  Meanwhile, there are more practical things we in the UK can do to protect homes and farms from flooding.