In a majority style democracy there is always a danger that the majority will get things wrong or will fail to heed wise words by the minority. This should all come out in the wash of elections and the public debate. A mature democracy also understands that treating minority groups and dissenters well is an important part of being truly democratic. Tolerance of others’ viewpoints is important, as long as they all accept the underlying system of resolving conflicts by debate , by votes and by allowing differing conducts and views to co-exist wherever possible.

          Some self appointed “left wing” moralisers like to castigate Conservatives as failing to appreciate the problems of minorities, of failing to understand what it feels like to be discriminated against and monstered for who you are rather than for what you do. In falsely portraying Conservatives like this, they give Conservatives direct experience of the minorities problem. It means we understand only too well what it feels like, as with their friends in the media the “left” seek to misrepesent us and put us on the back foot on so many issues.

           For years Eurosceptics  have been made to feel that they are  part of a minority by being  Eurosceptic. Never mind the polls which have often suggested majority support for not being in the Euro or for being critical of the Euro project. For a long time if you wished to argue that the Euro would be bad for jobs, prosperity and freedom you were thought by the BBC and others to be  beyond the pale of acceptable political views. Today many are rushing to appear as Euro currency  sceptics, but still regard it as an unacceptable view to say the Uk just wants to trade and be friends with the EU but  does not wish to be tied up in common government. Being a Eurosceptic is still a barrier for some when trying to get over  views on other topics.

             Because these commentators and media people regard this viewpoint as “right wing” – ignoring people like Benn and the Labour MPs who agree with it – Eurosceptics  are then often treated to guilt by association. The fact that they want a more democratic UK with less EU interference does not make them  a fan of the extreme right, any more than a democratic socialist wanting more equality from state action wants a communist tyranny modelled on the USSR circa 1956. It is time more commentators saw that Eurosceptics are democrats who have seen just how much damage the Euro and false political union can do to the peoples of  Europe.

          The Uk motor industry has been a success story in recent years. Tata’s launch of the new Range Rover has underlined its move to strong growth at home and abroad, with attractive 4 wheel drive products that the world market wants.  BMW’s Mini remains a popular vehicle, whilst the leading Japanese companies make high quality cars in the UK and export around Europe from this base. The Uk has become a specialist centre for engine manufacture for groups like Ford and BMW. Cutting edge engineering for Formula One cars remains a central feature of the UK’s exposure to this important sector.

         The decision by Ford to close its Transit assembly in Southampton was part of a wide range of closures and retrenchments around Europe. The industry is now being badly hit by the collapse in demand for autos in the stressed southern countries of Euroland, and by the slowdown in France and Germany. Much of the Euro area is in  or is moving into recession. Motor manufacturers have high levels of operational gearing. When final demand falls away stock levels need to fall, so demand for new product from the factory falls by considerably more than the decline in final customer demand.

          The way through for the UK industry is to sell more into the growing markets of China, India and the rest of the emerging world, and to design and produce such good products that they will gain market share even in declining markets.  The issues today for motor manufacturing relate to energy and logistics costs  more than to labour costs. Modern factories are highly automated and very energy dependent. Bought in materials and components are crucial to cost and manufacturing efficiency. The Uk government has to have in place an energy and transport policy which is friendly to mass production of engineered products.  It also needs to make sure there is a plentiful supply of skilled engineers and managers capable of organising sophisticated modern output.

          The figures for much of the rest of the EU make depressing reading. In September Greek purchases of cars were down by 48% on September 2011. In Spain the fall was 36.8%, Italy down by a quarter, France almost by a fifth and Germany itself down by 11%. The huge falls in the southern states shows how intense the austerity squeeze now is. The collapse in car sales will help mend balance of payments deficits, at the cost of hitting output  across the Eurozone. UK car sales are up so far this year, though even here there was a drop in September.  The Euro crisis is now having a big impact on living standards and jobs.

          After the Prime Minister has called for a “new relationship with the EU” for the UK, the Foreign Secretary has pointed out that the UK public is becoming extremely unhappy with the many powers sucked out of the UK into the EU.

            The new policy some in government and some leaders of business seem to want is a new deal based on full membership of the single market, and no membership of the Euro, banking union, fiscal union and the rest.  We need to ask is this feasible? Could this work?  Is this something we are likely to be able to negotiate?

           This attitude rests on the assumption that the single market is a clearly defined set of policies which offer us good access to other EU markets.   It  implies that the single market is broadly a free trading or market opening device. This is not, of course, how some on the continent see it. They see it as a system for governing unruly markets, a  manifestation of increasingly strong centralised government from Brussels. The single market to them has to have a social dimension, it requires policies for social cohesion, regional fairness, environmental intervention and the rest.

           This means that trying to seperate those policies which are central to the single market from the rest which are necessary for a strong federal government appropriate to a single currency is difficult and itself the stuff of disagreement. The UK may think that labour laws, trans European networks, skills and training, public health and the rest are not part of the single market, but others think they might be. Is health and safety a matter for national determination, or is it essential to be settled at EU level? Does a single market need universal rules on benefits and income top ups? Do we have to pay benefits to people who come under the free movement provisions to the UK and who then do not find work or lose their job?  Does a single market imply open borders for the free movement of people? Is carbon pricing a market measure, or a major impediment to the competitiveness of Uk companies?

           The immediate negotiation is about banking. Here the wish is to say all the rules  agreed so far – and there are many – are single market matters. Any new rules agreed in the name of a banking union are a step too far. How then, if others accept this distinction, does the UK prevent the Euro group using its muscle to impose Euro style regulations through the single market mechanisms? How can the single market section share a regulator, the European Banking Agency, with the Euro area? How, even with a split voting system, can the UK be sure it will not in future be dictated to on banking matters by the Euro group, who may have the support of other non Euro states wishing to join the Euro?

           It may be the case that we need less than the so called single market to be able to trade with other EU members. What we wish to avoid is having to accept regulations and standards on products we wish to export to non EU destinations, as these can be an impediment to our trade. The rest of the EU will be reluctant to let the UK out of regulations we see as a needless cost and they see as a necessary part of a socially and environmentally acceptable controlled market. The UK wants free trade, not single government.

           Once again the GDP figures show that continued real increases in public spending lie behind the changes in GDP.

          Once again the media present a very distorted picture of what is happening. They say that Olympic tickets account for some of the faster growth – around 20% of it. They fail to tell us that increases in real  public spending accounts for twice as much as the Olympic tickets, or 40% of it.

            The 0.1% increase from manufacturing and 0.1% increase from water was offset by the 0.2% fall from construction. Services account for the 1% gains overall. These split 0.4% from the public sector, and 0.6% from various parts of the private sector, including  hospitality related to the Olympics.

            Why do most of the commentators persist in distorting what is happening.? Why don’t they point out that increases in real public spending  have made a positive contribution to GDP as officially calculated all this year, and this quarter the gains are large. Some of the private sector service and manufacturing gains are the result of catch up from the previous quarter which enjoyed  the extra bank holiday.

        Yesterday the Conservative party chose new people to fill Select Committee vacancies, following the reshuffle.  The party elected a global warming sceptic, Peter Lilley, to the Climate Change and energy committee, a fierce  opponent of Quantitative Easing to the Treasury Committee, Brooks Newmark, and a strong critic of the Common Fisheries policy, Sheryll Murray, to the Environment committee. This could make for some interesting sessions.

           The Governor of the Bank has recently defended quantitative easing.  He has also made clear that as far as he is concerned, all the bonds bought up by the Bank will one day be sold back. It will not, of course, happen on his watch. The  longer we wait for the sales, the more bonds the Bank holds will be paid back by the state, paying  itself.  Effectively they are cancelled.

             The Governor wisely did not overclaim favourable outcomes for quantitative easing. He was fairly gloomy about the state of the Uk economy, despite the likely news that the economy came out of recession again last quarter.  He asserted that QE had limited the damage caused by the squeeze.  He also hinted that we are fast approaching the limits of what monetary policy can achieve.

              There is no doubt that there was a shortage of cash in the UK economy in recent years. That could have been dealt with by more radical and rapid moves to sort the commercial banks out. Instead, the previous government took large share stakes in them to leave them unreformed.  They  allowed  a policy of  extend and pretend on difficult loans delaying this process of sorting the banks out and recapitalising them. The Bank and government felt it had to create some more money and inject it by buying bonds off the private sector to offset the shortage of money. Money was not being  generated in the more normal way through a growing economy financed by credit creating commercial banks.

           We also need, however, to consider the other consequences of the unusual monetary policy that has been  a  striking feature of the last few years.

            Firstly, it has hit savers hard. Low interest rates have slashed  savings income. This in turn has reduced demand from the prudent and the retired who rely on savings income to supplement their budgets.

            Secondly, it has led to large increases in the pension fund deficits of many companies. The liabilities of pension funds – the future pension payments – are valued based on current bond interest rates. If bond interest rates are low, the fund needs to buy many more bonds to generate the bond income to pay the pensions. At the ultra low rates available on bonds today, pension funds have serious problems. Under the new tougher rules, a company has to value the pension deficit, and then make payments into the fund to correct it. The company also has to put the pension deficit as a liability on its own balance sheeet, making it more difficult for the company to borrow to grow its business.

          When people look at the better recent  cash generation of big business, they ask why don’t they rush to invest this money in new plant and equipment? Their worries about the deficits in their pension funds, and the impact of them on their balance sheets, deters companies in that position from making new business investment.

           Thirdly,  the period of  crisis followed by ultra low rates and QE has also seen a substantial devaluation of the pound. This has helped fuel a higher rate of inflation in the UK than in most other major advanced economies. This in turn has cut real incomes and reduced spending power in the economy.

            Fourthly, people retiring have had to buy annuities at very poor rates, meaning they have much lower pensions than they expected. This has also reduced demand.

           When this latest round of QE expires, would you do any more?

(this post first appeared on the Nelson Touch site)

I have always been a fan of the internet. It is one of the things that makes me optimistic. It is one of the reasons the present is better than the past. It is an exciting, fastmoving, radical technology. It is carrying out all sorts of transformations in society, business and government.

In the early 1980s I was an early enthusiast for computerising all the business data and records where I worked. I was an early adopter of the mobile phone, lugging round one of the brick sized objects with limited battery life that were the forerunners of today’s little gems. In 1992 I wrote “The Global marketplace” which forecast the digital information revolution without knowing that the detail of the technical work was well advanced on the worldwide web which would speed the transformation. When the internet at last arrived for all of us, I was early to the shops.

I wrote in 1992: “The new generation (of global capitalism) is based upon open systems, networking, and new communications technology. It all points in the direction of work being increasingly divorced from the workplace, fashions,fads and messages passing round the world rapidly, and successful business being able to customise for the mass consumer. The politics for such a world are very different from the politics pioneered to meet the challenge of mass factory organisation of the mid twentieth century.”

It is still too early to say just how many radical changes to working practises and service the web will enable. Recently we were discussing the role of the internet in learning. The web allows students access to the best teachers and lecturers in the world, and to a vast amount of data and material well beyond the capacity of many univeristy libraries, let alone school libraries of old. As one correspondent hinted, the next decade could see a big change in thinking over how students study, how teachers help them, where they do it and how they are examined.

The web tore through the old models for selling cars and houses, substituting a web marketplace for local newspaper ads and specialist magazines. It is busily destroying the local newspaper,and transforming Fleet Street from paper and ink to electronic display. The mobile phone and ipad have changed photography, supplanted many old hard wired landline phones, and aided people’s lives with sat nav and music services. The old recording industry has had to accept major change in how people listen to music. Just as the motor car made so many trades based on horses redundant or quaint relics of a former era, so the internet has uprooted business of many kinds and forced a radical rethink in what they are doing. Today it is making inroads in shopping, saying you do not have to have a shop to be a successful retailer.

It has fuelled multinational company communications, but it has also allowed lone individuals to go viral with a view or a criticism that can act as a strong antidote to government or corporate power. It has given governments new ways to spy and store data, new ways to tax and check up on us. It has also given taxpayers new ways to hit back, new ways to expose folly or corruption by government, new ways to fight back legally against the overweening power of the state. It seems to me to help the outsiders more than the insiders. This is confirmed by the way a country like China seeks to limit internet use, seeing unlimited internet as potentially disruptive.

Mr Obama was a great campaigner in 2008, showing how the web could be the base for a wide campaign that reached out to millions and kept them informed for a small outlay. One of the reasons many more people today are setting up their own business is the web gives them a cheap and rapid way of getting to market. You can set up a site announcing who you are and what you do. If it’s attractive and well written it can stand alongside giant company’s sites from day one. It gives the small guy a chance. It can be a very democratic technology. I am interested in your thoughts on how the web is transforming us, for good or ill.

The internet can play a leading role in the debate about public policy. It is helping refashion politics. The internet brings politics into your living room in a way you can manage. It gives you the right to hit back and to express your view. Sensible modern politicians take the internet seriously.

As someone who loves the dash of the new and who thinks the modern world is in many ways better than past decades, I hesitate to say that we should go back a past model. Better perhaps, is to say government needs to learn more from successful organisations in the private sector that do not have the luxury of getting away with mistakes.

It is true that the Blair model of government did a lot of damage. He and his immediate cronies believed that the prime task of government was to manage the media. They claimed that their task was uniquely difficult, because suddenly they lived in a world of 7 x 24 news, as if previous decades did not have to deal with an intrusive press quite capable of making out of hours calls if things were exciting enough. They had morning and evening papers and morning, daytime and evening radio broadcasts in the 1930s, whilst there has been plenty of late night and early morning tv in more recent times.

They damaged government by believing that a government can control all this media, and by thinking it is government’s unique job to entertain the media on a 7 x 24 basis. If government does not bother to entertain the media that regularly there are plenty of film stars, rock stars, footballers and other celebrities grateful to make fools of themselves sufficiently to boost their appearances.

Government should talk to the media when it has something to say. It has to accept it will be questioned when it has made a mistake. It should regard staying out of the media quite often as a success, as the media usually wants you in when you are on the ropes, not when you are succeeding. Government should concentrate on governing, and on saying enough so people know what it is trying to do and what it has achieved. Actiosn often speak lounder than words. A good economic recovery, and falling enegry prices, would be appreciated by voters even without a spin doctor to tell them about it.

Competent government needs to spend more time working out solutions to problems, seeking to proceed by trials and by careful policy implementation. It needs to spend plenty of time researching, testing and discussing, before rushing out a press release or statement. Mr Blair showed how dangerous and absurd government by press release could be, with items like his thugs to a cashpoint. This government needs to take an issue like high energy prices, analyse its causes properly, and then decide which of those causes it can and should tackle to get energy prices down. When it has a finalised version which should work, then is the time to tell peo[ple about it and to start its implementation.

In the case of energy the cost of customer subsidised electricity generation from dearer sources is a bigger cause of high energy prices than the margins of the main producers. The much lower energy prices in the US owe much to faster exploitation of shale gas technology.

Mr Cameron has rightly said he will veto any EU budget deal whmich aims to increase the EU budget. Some of us would like him to veto any budget which does not cut the EU budget substantially, given the chronic state of many European government finances. Mrs Merkel now says she will not hold a meeting if he insists on the veto. That is a silly idea, and would require the consent of all members if there is any justice in the system.

The EU cannot ignore the fact that is overspending, and cannot ignore the fact that the Uk wants a new relationship with it, as we find the current arrangements unacceptable for us. The sooner they tackle those problems, the better. The UK might, for example, be happy to consider allowing the rest to spend more, as long as we can pay in much less, and remove ourselves from large areas of the EU’s interference.

( NOTE TO MEDIA I am not expressing a view on this topic as IPSA is independent and responsible, and I am not planning to give interviews on this topic for that reason. The questions beneath are to sound opinion, are meant to be neutral, and are designed to give my bloggers a chance to express their views on something of interest to them)

I understand the wish of many of you to discuss the issue of MPs renting flats. Now I have seen the newspaper reports and understand what is going on, I am happy to provide this forum for you to ask questions of IPSA. As you appreciate, IPSA, the independent watchdog, makes the rules and enforces them. IPSA can change the rules if it wishes. Parliament does not seek to make or amend the rules.

At the heart of the latest stories are three questions:

1. Should MPs be able to charge rent for a small flat in central London, on the grounds that many cannot return to their main home in their constituencies on working nights at the Commons?

2. Should wealthier MPs who happen to own property investments be barred from claiming rent for a central London place, where MPs without savings can do so? Should there be some kind of wealth test over any rent claim, to avoid a richer MP selling property investments and putting the money into something else to still claim rent if the rules change?

3. Does it make any difference if renting is allowed for all MPs if some MPs happen to rent out property investments to other MPs, assuming it is done at market price? Is renting from another MP much worse than renting from a third party? Is an MP holding a rental property as an investment wrong, but an MP holding a bond or share as an investment OK?

As you seek to answer these questions you will find IPSA do not have an easy solution, if you accept the proposition that MPs do need financial assistance with a second home or to stay in London at all. I do not rent a property for my use, nor do I have a property to rent out, so I have no personal interest in the answers to these questions. I would be grateful if you did not personalise the answers to individual MPs for legal reasons. I note that MPs of all three main parties are involved so there is no party advantage to be gained on this issue.

I would also be interested in your answers to the following

Should all Ministers travel second class on trains and economy on planes?
Should MPs be allowed to buy an advance lower price first class ticket instead of a full fare second class ticket?
Should MPs always travel second class?

Again, I am not expressing a view. I have made no claims for travel costs this Parliament.