Comment

The Chancellor’s fancy footwork solves nothing

Published

8 months ago

March 6, 2024

THE CONDITIONAL phrase is a friend to politicians of all parties in all governments.
At its simplest, the proposition is: “If this happens, then we might be able to do this”.
The Chancellor’s Budget on Wednesday (Mar 6) was an example of the conditional phrase on steroids.

IT ALL DEPENDS

“If this happens, then that happens, and provided these things also happen, we might be in a position to consider doing this”.
As a strategy for spending on public services, it’s nonsense.
The UK Government is not in control of events that might affect its capacity to achieve even stage one of the processes that, on some far-away date, might mean it gets close to delivering public services more efficiently.
Let’s get that out of the way, for starters.
That is quite bad enough, but the Chancellor – not alone in this fiscal fraud – goes one step further.
Mr Hunt says the UK must cut its national debt, the amount it has borrowed to pay for Covid, Liz Truss, and other disasters. That objective is noble but meaningless. The debt the UK owes will rise over the next three years. It will only fall in the fifth year of the spending cycle and then only against the previous year’s debt.
That means the amount of debt the UK is in will rise over the next half-decade.
In turn, future repayments of that debt’s capital must be met out of future government revenues. The limited number of ways that can happen include refinancing the debt (putting off the payment to the future), raising taxes, and cutting public spending: probably a mix of all three.
The disingenuous lunatics on the Conservative right-wing bang on about how it’s all the Office of Budget Responsibility’s fault. The rules on debt and fiscal policy are not the OBR’s rules. They are the Chancellor’s. The OBR applies them to the Chancellor’s spending and taxation plans.
It is rather like Harold Shipman complaining he only murdered his victims because the pharmacist supplied him with poison. The intent is all on the Chancellor’s part.
Keir Starmer claimed the Government had “maxed-out” the nation’s credit card.
He is right, but only to an extent.
The central flaw in fiscal policy is that the Treasury—and therefore the Office of Budget Responsibility—fails to distinguish between borrowing and spending for investment and borrowing and spending to deliver day-to-day services and to make up for revenue shortfalls.
As Labour has chained itself to the wheel of the current spending approach, we will have to get used to paying more for less for years to come.
Any UK Government could borrow for future investment, putting the National Debt above 100% of GDP. However, that will likely increase the cost of borrowing and devalue the assets securing the current debt, such as UK Government bonds.
The markets wouldn’t wear that when Liz Truss tried it. They won’t wear it now. Borrowing more money while cutting taxes is like taking out a £500,000 loan, leaving a well-paid job that could service it, and deciding to work three shifts a week on a filling station forecourt.
Sooner or later, the bailiffs come knocking.

THE BOTTOM LINE

The political back-and-forth is interesting only to those with little stake in the Budget’s outcome, at least as it affects average families on average incomes.
A billion here, a hundred million there. Those are empty numbers.
The bottom line matters.
The Chancellor announced a cut in National Insurance from 10% to 8%. Last year, he reduced it by 12% to 10%. Forgetting, of course, that his predecessor (Sunak, R.) increased National Insurance in the first place.
However, Mr Hunt did not increase the wage level at which National Insurance starts being paid. That means the amount by which most workers on modest or average wages benefit from an NI cut will be eaten up by any pay increases they’ve received over the last two years of high inflation.
The income tax thresholds also remain stationary, pulling more people into paying the basic rate thanks to pay increases and the increased National Minimum Wage.
It’s sleight of hand. An apparent tax cut will leave people superficially better off but no richer.
In other titbits, the Chancellor announced the continuation of the 5p levy reduction on fuel for motor vehicles and a freeze on the duty on booze.
Mr Hunt also unveiled a new tax on vaping products from October 2026, linked to the levels of nicotine they deliver. At the same time, tobacco duty will rise by £2.00 per 100 cigarettes to ensure vaping remains cheaper.
From this April, the threshold at which small businesses must register to pay VAT goes up from £85,000 to £90,000. It’s something, but not much of something, as the threshold’s been frozen for the last seven years.
Mr Hunt also scrapped tax reliefs for the owners of furnished holiday lets. Holidays let owners claim capital gains tax reliefs and plant and machinery capital allowances for items such as furniture and other fixtures. At the same time, their profits can count as earnings for pension purposes.
Abolishing that tax break will save the UK government around £250 million annually starting from April 2025.
Holiday let investors could lose an average of £2,835 a year in tax, based on a property purchase price of £350,000, an annual mortgage rate of 4.5%, and £20,000 in rental income.

PUBLIC SERVICES IN LIMBO

The constant drive for “greater efficiency” in the public sector boldly and unfoundedly assumes that public service “productivity” is the same as the private sector’s. It isn’t.
Making a pin more efficiently through the division of labour is not the same as treating a patient for cancer or collecting bins.
In all efficiency drives, the point always arrives when there are no more lightbulbs or photocopiers to turn off at night, meaning savings must be found in frontline service budgets. Mr Hunt announced plans to “digitally transform” the NHS. Fat chance. The atomisation of the NHS into trusts and boards that must compete for money by offering the most at the least cost dooms the project to expensive failure.
The same applies to local government funding and extends to Wales.
Councils competing against each other for a finite pot of resources only available to spend on what the central Government insists it is spent on negates local democracy. It favours those local authorities closest to the Central Government or with the best grants application team.
Competition for funding is no way to deliver public services and leads to vanity projects.
It is better to deliver funding fairly and through a method that ensures funding follows the need for core services.
The question is acute in Pembrokeshire.
Our Council received millions of pounds in funding for projects Pembrokeshire does not necessarily need. The money would have been better allocated to the cost of adult social care delivery. However, the UK and Welsh Governments did not make tens of millions of pounds available to meet that need. Instead, we can have money for “Instagrammable bridges” and “transport hubs” because we won a prize in a competition with other broke local authorities to build things we don’t need.
It’s nonsense. And, at heart, every county councillor knows it is.
Any elected representative (whether councillor, MP, or MS) who doesn’t is unfit for public office.

Comment

Closure of Port Talbot blast furnace exposes limits of state power

Published

1 month ago

October 2, 2024

Design Team

By Jonathan Edwards

FUTURE historians will benchmark this week’s sad closure of the last remaining blast furnace at Tata Steel Port Talbot as a turning point in the UKs industrial history.

With the British Steel plant at Scunthorpe also due to turn off its own blast furnace, the UK as the birthplace of the industrial revolution will be left without the ability to produce its own steel.

This is a seismic moment therefore in our economic history: from here on in the UK will be reliant upon virgin steel imports.

Strategically this leaves the British state in an exposed position on all sorts of fronts.

Tragedy

This week’s development is of course primarily a tragedy for the 2,800 workers who will directly lose their jobs and those businesses further down the supply chain.

The jobs at Port Talbot were well paid in comparison to other available employment and therefore the local economy, even if workers were to find alternative jobs, will take a hit in terms of direct consumer expenditure.

The south Wales Valleys are already regrettably amongst the poorest regions of Europe.

The decision by Tata of course indicates the folly of privatising your primary industries in the first place. Once those industries are sold then governments lose control.

Decision makers

Port Talbot was originally bought by Corus before being ultimately bought by Tata in 2007, meaning that the fate of Welsh steel making was in the hands of decision makers in faraway Mumbai.

Understandably, directors and board members make decisions in what they perceive to be the best interests of their company.

Port Talbot is one asset of many that Tata holds across the world and in the group’s future business plan there is no longer a requirement for primary steel making capability in Port Talbot.

Did Brexit play a role in Tata’s thinking? The UK is no longer a part of the world’s largest economic union. If Tata wants to produce primary steel for the European market, why do it in Wales which is outside?

According to Tata, the blast furnaces were losing the company £1m a day. The restructuring involves £1.25bn investment by the company to build an electric arc furnace, which essentially recycles steel, with construction set to begin next summer. The UK Government will contribute £500m.

Savaged

In opposition the Labour Party absolutely savaged the blueprint, yet the final plans seem to have changed little now that they are in government at a UK level.

We were told in advance of the election that only a change of government could save the jobs. Prior to the election, Jo Stevens MP, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, said in the Commons: “This government has forked out £500m taxpayers’ cash for the loss of 3,000 jobs and this is their deal, and they own it.”

Earlier this month, the new Business and Trade Secretary of State, Jonathan Reynolds, said the Labour version of the same deal gives “hope for the future of steel making in south Wales”.

From what I can see it’s the same number of jobs lost for the same amount of money invested by the UK Government. Furthermore, the unions’ alternative proposals have not been adopted.

I am not entirely convinced the tactic of the UK Government to gloss the agreement is credible.

Perhaps they genuinely thought that their proposals would change the position of the company; if so they have been given a very rude awakening on the limit of the powers of the nation state when up against a giant company like Tata.

Plaid Cymru’s ultimate call for the Welsh Government to compulsorily purchase the site also has its weaknesses.

The Welsh Government’s entire economic development budget for both revenue and capital is only £527m. At a £1m a day loss, compulsorily purchasing Port Talbot would wipe out 70% of the total budget without even considering the cost required to buy the plant.

Alternative for Deutschland

I was listening to a very interesting podcast by Irish economist David McWilliams recently where he discussed the rise of the far right AfD (Alternative for Deutschland) in Germany.

One of the main reasons for its recent electoral successes has been the decision of Volkswagen, a company that has provided well-remunerated employment for the best part of a century, to start closing production capacity in Germany.

The podcast argued that the demise of the old certainties has created a climate of fear that is being exploited.

We are no strangers to industrial decline in Wales; however the closure of the last steel making blast furnace in Wales underscores that we are facing a very uncertain economic future.

Faced with global forces they cannot control, the traditional political mainstream does not have a convincing narrative of where we are heading. Talk of a green industrial revolution sounds great in a pamphlet, but what exactly does it mean for working people in terms of employment and remuneration?

Looking at the overall strategic political position, I fear that Project Miserable by the UK Government could well backfire and play into the hands of the far right. Welsh nationalism also must move beyond its default grievance narrative. In the absence of hope for our people, malign forces will surely pounce.

Jonathan Edwards was the MP for Carmarthen East & Dinefwr from 2010 to 2024.

Comment

Castle Square bike night promises a thrilling evening

Published

3 months ago

August 14, 2024

Tom Sinclair

AS the weather promises to stay bright and sunny, Haverfordwest is set to host yet another exciting Castle Square Bike Night this Wednesday, August 14. The event, starting at 6:30pm, is expected to draw bike enthusiasts from across the region, all eager to showcase their gleaming machines.

A highlight of the evening will be a BBQ on the Square, hosted by Block & Barrel. All proceeds from the BBQ will go directly to Blood Bikes Wales, a charitable organization providing vital courier services to the NHS. Attendees who have pre-ordered their event t-shirts will be able to collect them on-site.

Adding to the evening’s excitement, Liam Steer from Pembs Moto Addicts will be on hand to offer suspension setup services. Riders interested in this service are advised to park next to Shaw’s for convenience.

Photography enthusiasts are also in for a treat, as Celtic Memories and Lilly’s Photography will be capturing the event, ensuring that the memorable moments of the night are documented.

Marshalls will be present throughout the event to assist with parking and ensure the safety of all participants. They will be easily identifiable in their high-visibility vests.

Organizers are calling on the community to come together and fill the Square with the roar of motorbikes, promising an unforgettable evening for all. The event is open to everyone, including families, and promises a great night out for bike lovers and the local community alike.

So, polish those bikes, gather the family, and head down to Castle Square for a night of camaraderie, good food, and motorcycle magic. See you there at 6:30pm!

Comment

Dismal debate shows leaders’ shortcomings

Published

5 months ago

June 5, 2024

Jon Coles

THIS reporter watched the first debate of the General Election campaign, writes Jon Coles.

He did it to spare you the bother.

He wishes he hadn’t spared you because now he’s bothered.

There are several ways to approach reporting on such an event: a stringent analysis of the facts, a comparison of the policy pledges both leaders made, and even bemused indifference.

Instead, here’s a balanced and informed personal response.

If that’s the choice the country faces, we are all doomed.

On the one hand, tiny, tetchy, and oh-so-shouty Rishi, who couldn’t bring himself to acknowledge his party has been in power for fourteen years.

On the other hand, Keir Starmer couldn’t help but remind people that he came from humble oranges and believed in something, even if he couldn’t identify it under questioning.

In the middle, Kate Etchingham from ITV News needed to be subbed out in favour of Nigel Owen as soon as she let Rishi Sunak repeat the same lie repeatedly without allowing Keir Starmer to address it.

Mr Sunak’s message was simple: “WOOOOOO! Labour! Spooky! Beware!”

Mr Starmer’s was also simple: “My dad was a toolmaker.”

If that is the best the two largest political parties in the UK can come up with, you have to wonder how bad their own parties’ alternatives are.

(This reporter also watched the Senedd this week; he knows).

You don’t have to wonder hard, of course. Liz Truss, Boris Johnson, Jeremy Corbyn, and the Steve Miller Band have all had a go and all been disastrous.

In the interest of introducing some facts into fact-free exchanges, The Herald looked at the big claims both made.

Mr Sunak argued for a £2000 tax rise under Labour. Here’s how he came up with that number: his policy advisors created a list of “Labour policies”, made assumptions about them, and then asked Treasury civil servants to cost them.

In short, the Prime Minister’s figures are garbage, and he knows they are.

Mr Sunak also said a Labour government would tax people’s pensions. Since he, as Chancellor, pulled hundreds of thousands of pensioners into paying taxes by freezing tax thresholds only to pledge an unaffordable pension “quadruple lock” after fourteen years in office, his words ring hollow.

Onto Sir Keir Starmer.

Did he mention his father was a toolmaker?

More seriously, it’s hard to think of a single thing Keir Starmer said that amounted to a policy that would improve people’s lives. He was sad for the lady with cancer. He sympathised with the student. He would be firm but fair.

In other news, the sky is blue, the grass is green, and the rain is wet.

Messrs Sunak and Starmer profess to be big football fans. The debate was like watching a dismal mid-table fixture between two teams, unaware that the important thing to do with the ball is kick it towards the other side’s net in the hope of scoring a goal.

Mr Sunak wanted to concentrate on the future. That’s not a surprise. His biggest achievement is staying in office long enough to undo the worst economic effects of his predecessors’ administrations.

You would never associate Mr Sunak with chutzpah. However, for sheer nerve, accusing Mr Starmer of not coming up with a better idea in fourteen years than his brilliant one for National Service was like a child who’d murdered their parents asking a court for mercy because they’re an orphan.

It would be churlish to point out his own Armed Forces Minister ruled out National Service only two days after Mr Sunak called the election because the armed forces didn’t want it.

Mr Sunak’s claim that, on the contrary, many in the armed services supported the scheme means either his minister was wrong and those briefing him from the armed services were wrong, or – and it’s a possibility – one of his friends on Call of Duty said it was a vote winner.

Back to Keir Starmer.

Did you know his dad was a toolmaker?

The studio audience liked Sir Keir’s pledge to crack down on those using non-domiciled tax status to avoid paying taxes. He could’ve rubbed it in by saying that since Mr Sunak’s campaign team had identified £2.5bn in tax avoidance that could be recovered quickly after fourteen years of looking for it, he might be persuaded to let the sons-in-law of Indian billionaires off the hook.

However, apart from non-dom status, the only thing approaching a firm policy commitment from the Labour leader was his observation that his dad was a toolmaker.

That’s a dreadful verbal tic, and he will have to do more than swap it out for “my mum was a nurse”.

Spiky exchanges on immigration were as heated as they were unenlightening.

When discussing migration, Mr Sunak claimed small boat arrivals are down by “a third” in the last 12 months.

Small boat arrivals did fall by around a third in 2023, comparing year-on-year. However, provisional figures show that in 2024, small boat arrivals have risen 38% compared to the same period last year.

Mr Sunak had a nice line prepared for Keir Starmer’s predictable attack on going to the country before a single plane took off for Rwanda. On the one hand, Mr Starmer had spent two years calling for an election, only to complain when one was called.

The Labour comms team must work on that.

However, the Labour leader was surely correct when he said only international cooperation would stop the organised gangs involved in people trafficking. Glorious isolation will achieve nothing and probably – as those who backed Brexit to curb immigration have found out – make things far worse.

As for who “won”?

The Labour leader shaded it by being less obnoxious.

We must also remember that those commenting online or offering an opinion on broadcast media had made up their minds before Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak opened their mouths.

It’s always best to watch for yourself and make up your mind.

In this case, don’t bother.

Summing up the debate is easy: seventy minutes wasted.