A Resolution Budget Solution?

Just Read It

One of the great disappointments of Starmer's Labour Government is the way it has tackled its budget. If growth were the prime objective, then there have been too many ill-conceived decisions by the Chancellor. Rachel Reeves has a tendency to follow treasury orthodoxy and an unwillingness to devolve decisions to departments or localities, who have a far better knowledge of what works. The chancellor, like Gordon Brown, seems to believe that leadership is about making decisions herself. She has an autocratic leadership style that is inflexible and has resulted in heavy criticism from not only the right-wing press but also businesses and many Labour MPs. Too many decisions are constraining other key objectives of the government, such as child poverty, climate action, international aid and employment growth. 

Existing taxation regimes are made ever more complex when what is needed is simplification. A decluttering of the stupidity of many VAT rules and the regressive outcome of the dual impact of income tax and national insurance systems, which should be integrated. Thousands of accountancy firms exist to find loopholes for the better off in a taxation system that is far from progressive even before the annual dance off between HMRC and the said accountancy firms. 

So I was greatly encouraged when Torsten Bell was recruited to work with the Treasury team on economic policy. Torsten Bell had worked with Alistair Darling during the last Labour Government when he made significant progress on firing up the economy after the 2008 Financial Crisis. His initiatives were scrapped by George Osborne when he introduced his austerity measures. Bell subsequently worked successfully as the CEO of the Resolution Foundation until being elected as an MP for Swansea. He published a book last year, Great Britain? How we get our Future back. that set out his views on what we needed to do to get Broken Britain moving again. His chapters on taxation, housing, benefits, decentralising power and increasing public investment are particularly apposite, but not aligned with Rachel Reeves' playlist of actions. It will be a real boost for Labour's so-called agenda for 'change' if Torsten Bell can convince the inflexible chancellor to do just that.

Pace, Disruption and Progress

Another Rabbit Hole for HS2

In recent weeks, we have begun to hear both severe criticism and praise for President Trump, the dealmaker and the great disruptor. The deals haven't worked out in Ukraine and Gaza, and the beautiful tariffs have spooked the markets, prompting a spiral of inflation and a loss of American soft power. The pace of announcements has been relentless, causing significant disruption in the financial markets. It has become one of the tools of populism, challenging the post-war consensus on international agreements and the role of the deep state.

Admittedly, some things are getting done, like tax breaks for the wealthy, the return of illegal immigrants, the slashing of international aid and the closure and sacking of staff in federal agencies. Trump, the autocrat, has created an oligarchy that is fulfilling its lust for extreme wealth and a studied disdain for the American Constitution that had ideals of democracy, rights, liberty and equality. Elon Musk has been axed from the oligarchy for challenging Trump for abandoning the liberty of free trade.  He is promising to fund a new political party to break up the binary politics of the Republican and Democratic Parties. 

The Big Beautiful Bill is upsetting the markets, and according to a CNN survey, it is opposed by 61% of the electorate. The MAGA core is becoming tetchy about the President's relationships with Putin and Epstein, and his reluctance to release documents. These disruptions are damaging to the poor and oppressed in America and cutting off funding for the third world. Government departments and Universities have been subject to severe cuts in funding as Trump seeks to settle his prejudices against what he perceives as liberal institutions. They cost the federal government too much, in his opinion, as he tries to cut wealth taxes and impose his oligarchic tendencies on an increasingly tribal America.

Despite these problems, some lessons can be learned from Trump's mode of operation. Things move at a pace, and some disruptions, such as the funding of  NATO, have led to a reset of the partnership with greater costs and responsibilities transferring to Europe. Efforts by previous U.S. presidents to achieve this rebalancing had fallen on deaf ears, but Trump's threat to withdraw funding has led to a shift in Europe's willingness to take greater responsibility. We may despise the outcomes of Trump's disruptive methods, but the rapidity of change is in stark contrast with the UK's plodding attempt at change. 

The UK's response to various crises, such as the infected blood scandal, the post office IT scandal, the Grenfell Tower Public Inquiry or the Covid Inquiry, has involved years and in some cases decades passing without any outcome for the victims. The government has specialised in creating rabbit holes to avoid paying compensation, whilst building structural rabbit holes by caving in to demands for land compensation and elaborate designs for HS2, Nuclear Power Stations and airport expansions. These national infrastructure projects have been a cash cow for financial and construction consortia, even further enhanced as they identify constraints, run behind schedule and inflate the costs. 

The failure to tackle social care has been a dereliction of governance by successive governments since Andy Burnham, as Health Minister, tried to obtain a cross-party agreement in 2009. The housing policies since the Thatcher years have been a bonanza of easy money for the house builders, the estate agents, surveyors and bank lenders who have escalated prices whilst reducing the completion and specification of new houses. They are the modern middlemen with greedy girths and little social conscience. The same could be said for the private landlords, often middle-class investors, who have exploited their tenants by ratcheting up rents and, in many cases, being tardy with repairs and maintenance. Their ability to make money has been greatly enhanced as the supply of social rented housing has been depleted by the government's doctrinaire diminishment of Council Housing.

In the UK, we seem unable to make anything happen because of our obsessively antiquated procedures, poor-performing regulators and our uncodified constitution. Together with our excessively centralised governments at Westminster and Holyrood that operate with short-term visions and long-term actions, we are locked in a cycle of chronic stagnation and a growing disillusionment with our government.

It requires governments to up their pace and indulge in some progressive disruption. Think about Rachel Reeves' ill-thought-out proposal to build an additional runway at Heathrow. Leaving aside the environmental, transport and financial objections, the supposed justification is growth. When do we need growth? Now. When will it produce results? More than ten years in the future. A short-term vision and long-term action with unspecified costs and huge disruption to local communities and the M25. It is the result of ministerial weakness in the face of corporate lobbying for the 'Big is Beautiful' movement that fills company coffers and leaves the treasury picking up the tab. Think HS2, the Water Companies, the Edinburgh Trams or the A9 improvement. All are costing much more than anticipated and taking decades to become a reality, if they ever will.

So, what is the alternative? The Labour Government has been in power for a year, and despite campaigning under the banner of 'Change', there has been far too little progress. This has been celebrated with glee by the press, as well as being obvious to the electorate. Starmer believes that things are not broken, and Rachel Reeves has succumbed to the Treasury orthodoxy and made several poor decisions. Repeating ad nauseam that the £22 million black hole left by the Tories had to be fixed is a turn-off for most voters. They have been over-cautious, and some radical changes should have been put in place. 

Perhaps some focused disruption, rather than the constant setting up of inquiries, would be helpful. Equally, there must be a willingness to simplify or streamline procedures by eradicating outdated legislation, speeding up enforcement by regulators and government agencies. There would be benefits from simplifying and devolving some taxation, cutting out the financial middlemen of housing and construction. The government needs to trust in localities to drive the agenda for change, but this is palpably beyond the mindset of distant government departments and their ministers.  

A new, simplified written constitution would help, as would simplifying the income tax and national insurance regime to make it more equitable between the young and old and equalising tax and national insurance for PAYE and the self-employed. It would make it more difficult for tax avoidance through the extensive use of clever accountancy. Income tax and national insurance should be integrated into a more progressive personal taxation regime. VAT needs to be simplified and extended to some activities that are hugely damaging to carbon emissions, like air travel, and to unhealthy food and drinks. 

The housing market could be loosened by reducing or eliminating stamp duty, and what about encouraging factory-built sustainable housing instead of supporting the cost-cutting, space-denying, profit-maximising offerings from the volume builders? And it is surely time to develop a land taxation system that can fund local infrastructure investment rather than allowing huge profits to be taken by land owners and developers by the simple expedient of obtaining planning permission for a change of land use. This should be a public resource, not a private profit, as the Land Commission of 1969 intended before it was abolished by Ted Heath's government. 

A little bit of disruption would go a long way to speed up progress and create a vibe of optimism and growth, but it needs the government to trust communities, businesses and local democracy if it is serious about change.

A Really Useful Idiot

"Give me your tired, your poor and huddled masses, and find a haven, banishing all fear.

"

Trumpism started with the Tea Party.

American hegemony had gone too far. They had been the de facto winners of the Second World War. Roosevelt had provided the supplies and equipment, the Doughboys came to the rescue of a fractious Europe and Marshall Aid was supplied for its rebuilding. The USA halted the spread of communism beyond East Germany and in Asia and the Americas, with some notable exceptions. They became the home base of global institutions, including the United Nations, NATO, the World Bank, and the IMF. They consolidated and celebrated their influence with nuclear weapons, movies, advertisements, fins on their automobiles, skyscrapers, junk food and damaging chemicals. They were doused in dollars, oil and bumper crops. The wealthy became wealthier, and ambitious migrants from Europe, Asia and the Americas boosted their talent pool. 

The rest of the world lapped up the fairy story. It allowed the USA to exploit the natural resources of other nations and take over their companies. American products, from planes and weapons to fast food, fizzy drinks and domestic appliances, were foisted on the world along with a glamorous narrative of a nation too good to be true. The United States were not colonialist in pursuit of an empire; that was old hat, they were buying their way into exploiting the resources and the economic growth of what they regarded as their domain, the free world.

They had their comeuppance in Korea, Vietnam, and parts of Central and South America, and this created a scintilla of doubt amongst the radicalised young in the 1960s and 1970s. But the USA was high on self-belief and had charismatic political and business leaders who assumed global leadership, never more so than when Gorbachov ceded the freedom of the Soviet republics and the creation of democracies in new nations that were former republics.

Things turned sticky in the Middle East as oil-rich autocratic nations began to exercise their wealth, and George Bush, father and son, took military action in Iraq and Afghanistan. It didn't end well, and they had harangued other Western countries to reluctantly support the invasions. The patina of American power began to lose its sheen, but the USA still retained its reputation as the alpha country in the free world. Trump 1.0 muddled through with the MAGA base kept in check by the grown-ups in the administration. However, the rehearsal had convinced Trump that he did not need advisers or seasoned politicians; what he needed were amateurs and fellow travellers to parody a government while he played out his fantasies and took corruption to the next level. The fact that 75 million voters had endorsed his second term gave him the power to follow his fundamental instincts.

His second coming started with a momentum that was meant to shock and awe the rest of the world. Previous policies and agreements were shredded, diplomacy was derided, felons were released from jail, and tariffs were hiked to levels that left the rest of the world wincing and pleading for clemency. He acted as if he was all-powerful, and world leaders responded accordingly. But some leaders baulked at the idiocy of Trump's gameplay, which had gone too far. Canada and Mexico challenged him. They were supported by their angry citizens and businesses, who boycotted American goods. This mood was echoed and copied around the world as Trump threatened to take over Greenland and Panama, make Canada the 51st state, rename the Gulf of Mexico, suggest the USA should take over Gaza for real estate development, humiliate President Zelensky, give license to Vice President Vance to insult Europe and the Pope on his death bed, withdraw from the Climate Change agreement and no longer provide refuge for immigrants who now fear being banished to distant lands. The United States has forsaken the Statue of Liberty's Call as "a place of hope, beyond compare."  

The worm had turned. Canada's Prime Ministers Trudeau and then Mark Carney both called him out. China did not flinch and retaliated with equally severe tariffs on American goods. The American Finance sector was faithful to Mammon, and the Bond market collapsed. Harvard University sued Trump over his withdrawal of research funding. Elon Musk, Trump's Tonto, had had enough; his businesses were in freefall, and he had become a derided figure of fun as he closed down government departments and agencies with the deftness of a SpaceX rocket exploding on takeoff. Trump had taken the red pill and was still in Wonderland."All persons more than a mile high to leave the court" seemed a suitable epitaph for Musk's time in government.

The shackles that had bound Western nations to the USA in its pomp were broken. Elections in Canada and Australia returned anti-Trump candidates, who months earlier had been facing defeat. China took a long-term view and began trade negotiations with other countries that had been hammered by Trump's Tariff proposals. The European Union was united in its opposition to Trump, who, never one to admit mistakes, was beginning to row back on his proposals, claiming they were part of his deal-making strategy. 

The disruption that Trump had inflicted on the world had backfired; the umbilical cord to the USA had been severed. We are moving to a New World Order. Trump has been a Really Useful Idiot.

Chevrolet Impala with Fins - functionally useless

Musk and Tesla - yesterday’s stars

Today Refreshed

Anna Foster - Today Programme

I have been a less regular listener to the Today Programme since the start of the year. It seemed to have lost its vitality and focus since the loss of Mishal Husain. Her professionalism and sharp focus had kept other presenters on the ball. Her temporary replacements, Jonny Dymond, Simon Jack and Katya Adler, had kept things ticking over, but Emma Barnett did not seem to be a team player. She is a loose cannon, unaware of her brutal style that irks interviewees, her fellow interviewers and this listener. 

Nick Robinson and Amol Rajan were spending time on other projects, including their Today Podcast, which is usually very good, but it did not please Justin Webb. He had been involved on occasion but was aggrieved that it trespassed on his Americast podcast with Sarah Smith. This is hardly surprising given that world news rotates around Planet Trump.

Then, the new presenter, Anna Foster, arrived on air.  She was in Thailand on her first day, covering the Myanmar earthquake. Her easy style brought out the best in the people she interviewed; she made a seamless connection with Nick Robinson in London, and they were immediately a working team. The Today Programme was back on track. Amol had already interviewed her on the Today podcast, and they had vowed to look forward to working together. Anna will no doubt rescue Justin from his grumpiness and cope with Emma, just as she does with everyone else in her fresh and positive manner. I wouldn't bet on Emma surviving the year though.

End of the American Dream

Liberation Day or Breaking Bad

I was asked what sort of coffee I wanted. I paused before requesting a cappuccino; normally, I would order an americano. I had had it with Trump's America and been influenced by the Canadians and French, who had decided to boycott products from the USA in response to Trump's tariffs and treatment of Ukraine and Gaza. Not to mention his tryst with Putin. I would join them, singing it softly with my choice of coffee

It was an easy decision. I had given up Coca-Cola and Pepsi in 1972 because I disliked fizzy, sugary drinks. I had abandoned the Sunday Times when it was bought by News International in 1981 and refused to subscribe to Sky Television for the same reason. I have never revisited any American fast food outlet following my daughter's birthday party at a Burger King in 1987. I never bought a Ford, Vauxhall, or Tesla because they had built-in obsolescence when I was younger and are less well-made than European cars.  

I visited the USA seven times from 1979 to 2014 and loved the magnificent scenery from Yosemite to Canyonlands to the West Coast and the Black Hills of South Dakota. But the American Dream was becoming a faded nightmare. I despaired at the desolation of Great American Cities, the massive Trailer Parks that surround many towns and house low earners, migrants and the excluded. They are part of the rampant inequalities that make a mockery of the American Dream. Woodie Guthrie called it right in 'This Land is Your Land', but Trump has sacrificed humanity and just wants ‘Your Land to be His Land’. 

US governments have tried to usurp democratic governments from Vietnam to Chile to Grenada to Ukraine, and Trump is making eyes at Panama, Canada, Greenland and Gaza. The beneficent policies of F.D. Roosevelt, Truman and Eisenhower in the war years and thereafter in supporting and then rebuilding Europe have been progressively diluted in the past two decades. American companies had plundered other countries for minerals, cheap food, manufactured goods and state enterprises. These companies have bought out local businesses, and hedge funds have stripped many businesses worldwide. Meanwhile, the corporate giants foraged for defence and security contracts and poured oil into trouble spots. Their hegemony was absolute after the collapse of the USSR.

During recent discussions with friends, it became apparent that many were considering how to respond to the America First, anti-European sentiments espoused by Trump and his acolytes in government. How could we take individual action? The UK government is too timid and supine to act like Canada and challenge Trump, so maybe we should take action 'for the people by the people'; Abe Lincoln said that. We have witnessed European and Canadian car buyers trashing Tesla by no longer buying them, resulting in the share price dropping 44% ($462.28 - $259.27) from  Christmas 2024 to 31 March 2025. 

Given that Trump has called Wednesday, 2 April 2025, Liberation Day. Let us use our liberty to exercise our choice of goods and services and examine whether we want to continue to support the paragons of American global enterprise. Here are some starter suggestions of American companies that would maybe kick back at Trump if we redirected our spending elsewhere. 

1. Travel: forego the United States, go to Europe, Canada, Mexico or Japan

2. Holiday Bookings: Airbnb, booking.com, TripAdvisor - use local websites and cut out the American middleman

3. Social Media: Facebook, Netflix, X, YouTube, Sky, Disney+, Discovery, Instagram, Pinterest, Linkedin - choose life instead

4. Tech Companies: IBM, Google, Microsoft, Apple, Cisco, Bloomberg - maybe this is easier said than done

5. Online retailers: Amazon, eBay, Etsy - buy local or from UK/European websites

6. Fast food and coffee: eat healthily and give up McDonald's, KFC, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Subway, Papa John's and give Starbucks a miss and Lime Bikes

7. Food and Drink: Cadbury's, Coca-Cola, Fanta, Heinz, Kellogg's, Kraft, Nabisco, Pepsi - stop buying processed food and sugary drinks and steer clear of Costco 

7. Clothing: GAP, Nike, Levi's, Abercrombie and Fitch, J Crew, Ralph Lauren, Patagonia - use charity shops and buy less

8. Other shit: American Express,  ExxonMobil, Xbox, Sonos, Boeing, Jack Daniel's, and avoid the American Health Care intruders, United Health Group, and Care UK who are buying hospitals, GP practices and residential homes. There are a lot more British businesses that have been acquired and merged into American companies.

9. Cars: Ford, Tesla, Jeep - European, Japanese and Korean are of better quality

10. Football teams: Arsenal. Aston Villa, Bournemouth, Chelsea, Fulham, Crystal Palace, Ipswich, Liverpool, Manchester United - Support your local team instead, although they are probably sponsored by a betting company 

If I could keep just three of these from room 101, well, Apple, Liverpool and maybe, post-Trump, the United States. Retribution begets reconciliation.

'For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business.' TS Eliot

Treasury Rules

HM Treasury

As Keir Starmer's government settles down to business, one change that would make a difference would be to loosen the tentacles of Treasury rules and control that have been such a strait jacket on innovation and growth over the last few decades. 

Undoubtedly, the new government's inherited financial situation did not augur well for setting their first budget as the Institute for Fiscal Studies Paul Johnson's article on the black-hole explains. Funding was not set aside for many of the inquiries into serial mistakes by the government and its agencies, including the post office horizon scandal, the infected blood scandal, and Grenfell Tower. Other commitments of the outgoing government such as the pay review body recommendations were not funded even though they are normally accepted by the government. The conservative opposition and mainstream press have wasted no time trying to lay the blame on the new government castigating them for making payments to the trade unions when pay settlements had been held down for years by austerity. This was the reason behind the rail, nurse and doctor's strikes. This must be seen in the context of public sector awards falling well behind inflation over the past 13 years because of their fundamental disdain for public services,  These have continued since COVID-19 as shown in the graph below.

This means that Rachel Reeves was left with the requirement to make significant savings from existing budgets or from finding new forms of taxation. This is where the treasury began to dominate the proposals put forward. She has swallowed many of the treasury maxims that have not translated well into her budget. They are macro-level solutions that fit with the Treasury's tendency to distrust ministerial departments and local democratic bodies. They tend to operate through centralised diktat rather than evidence-based collaborative thinking. 

The outcome is entirely predictable. Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer are no longer shiny happy people and not just because their wardrobes have had to be handed back. They are macro proposals of the type that take no recognisance of the detailed ramifications of the budget changes to those services, businesses and people that are most affected. 

The cutback of winter fuel allowances for the elderly and disabled would have been more acceptable had it been limited to those paying tax. This could have been refined by allowing the Department of Work and Pensions to find ways of safeguarding the most vulnerable from the impact of this measure. Anyone not paying any tax at all should automatically continue to receive it. This would have given a lesser saving but would have avoided the understandable indignation of pensioners and damaging the most vulnerable population in the UK. The electorate rightly expected more progressive budgetary decisions from a Labour government.

The introduction of additional national insurance payments by businesses was ill-thought-out and presumably taken because the Labour Party had ruled out NI increases for employees. Reversing Jeremy Humt's reductions in NI employee contributions would have been a better way of dealing with this if growth was the prime mission of the new government. Switching the savings to employers affects not only businesses but also public services and charities and will further impinge on their ability to deliver improved public services after years of decline. This is having a major impact on many of the very services that are required to improve the quality of life of many of the most vulnerable. Additional NI contributions by health authorities, councils, charities organisations and housing associations will stall improvements in services that are responsible for the majority of public services and Rachel Reeves is now having to construct a narrative to counter this unintended consequence.

The inheritance tax on farmers has not played well but there is some merit in taxing the super-rich who have utilised this loophole in inheritance tax to secure their assets by becoming land owners. It simply requires some strategic thinking about the purpose and the consequences of introducing willy-nilly proposals that could generate a tranche of funding to cover the black holes but have been made to sound petty.

Some of these black holes relate to the scatter of government failures that have been channelled into the long grass of expensive inquiries by the government. The Post Office paid £250m to its lawyers and the post office inquiry has cost £50m. Compensation to the victims has been far less so far and Rachel Reeves has had to find £540m for the expected compensation..

The infected blood scandal goes back to the 1970s when over 30,000 people were given contaminated blood products, 10% of whom died. The findings of the inquiry did not materialise until earlier this year leaving Rachel Reeves with the the responsibility for finding £11.8bn of compensation for victims in the budget.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry has cost £173m so far and £340m has been promised for a memorial. The victims have received £42m to date as the word cloud of those responsible bustles each other to shift the blame.

The previous government had made finagling responsibility for government mistakes and compensation for victims an art form of time management. Jeremy Hunt's hasty pre-election budget sought to offer reductions in employee National Insurance payments but never identified where the consequent savings would be made other than the usual trope of departmental efficiency savings.

So Rachel Reeves was given a poor hand but has played it badly because she has fallen for the Treasury cocktail of savings that lacks a detailed understanding of how things work in the real world. She had 3 months to finesse the budget but cobbled together more of the stale menu of savings that the Treasury and Chancellors have been serving for decades. What has been particularly disturbing is that Rachel Reeves claims that she has never heard of any alternatives to her budget proposals. She has either a deaf ear or lacks the imagination or willingness to engage with ideas other than the sterile top-down solutions of the Treasury that has made central government the monopoly recipient of taxation and broken the umbilical cord of accountability between councils and their citizens and businesses. In my humble view one of the fundamental mistakes of the past 50 years.

The Treasury is dominant in the development of the budget that by its very nature is developed at the macro level.  They do not take into account the nuances that ministerial or effective political deliberation should deliver. And there is no attempt to take cognisance of regional or local knowledge where practical experience would identify less disruptive or damaging options.

At a time when the impact of climate change is accelerating and causing havoc in communities and the switch to electric vehicles is stalling, surely it would be appropriate to use the fuel price escalator which has been frozen since 2011. Yes, it would be an extra charge for households and logistics companies but our roads are overly congested and there is an imperative to generate better use of buses and trains. Electric cars are no longer selling at the rate required to meet climate change targets, so raising the cost of fuel for diesel and petrol vehicles when fuel costs have diminished would be a doubly beneficial measure. At the same time, a tax on short-haul air travel in the UK would raise income and/or reduce the need for airport expansion.

The Labour Party sold the pass on raising income tax in their manifesto but a higher taxation could kick in at a level beyond, say, £150,000 per annum. This might also be linked to one of Rachel Reeves's intentions about pensions. It could be used to pay for a government investment bond instead of her proposal to centralise local government pension schemes which have been well managed and guaranteed pensions by strong local accountability and competition between financial advisers. Shifting the control to mega pension funds serviced by the usual coterie of finance companies will penalise SME financial companies and make investment in local companies less likely.

An area that has not been considered since the 1960s is some form of land taxation. This should apply particularly to the development of land. At the moment land is bought cheaply by residential developers in particular and once the planning permission is gained the valuation of that land rises significantly. Any uplift in land values should be taxed for the benefit of the local community. Equally many landowners including farmers are reaping significant income streams from wind farms and arrays of solar panels or micro hydro schemes on their land. This could be a source of funding for local councils that have seen their funding reduced and capped over the past decade.

The UK should be following the example of other European countries who have not tied electricity prices to the cost of gas which is dictated largely by Putin's export of gas. Given that the UK has a higher percentage of electricity generated from renewables and other sources, including the remnants of nuclear, it might save considerable costs to consumers of electricity.  It would diminish the rates paid to the electricity providers who currently use gas primarily and more sustainable sources are turned off in periods of low demand. So despite the UK having the highest capacity of renewables, we are paying the highest prices in Europe because prices are pegged to the price of gas. 

Another option would be for the government to introduce an online sales tax. Many city centre town centre businesses have been badly damaged by competition from online retailers who do not have to pay town centre business rates. It would benefit existing town centres that have been severely damaged by online sales by Amazon and other retailers, out-of-town retail parks and the loss of footfall following Covid and the significant shift to working from home.  The vitality of our town and city centres could be greatly enhanced by such measures.

These are just a few of the policy options for generating more tax and rebuilding public services at the same time addressing some of the other missions that the new government made the centrepiece of their manifesto. Rachel Reeves has shown no indication that she will break the treasury rules and her reputation is one of another bean counter, whose only advantage over Jeremy Hunt is that she can count.

Making America Lesser Again

Mount Rushmore: Space for Trump in the rubble

November the fifth is fireworks night in the UK when tradition has it that we celebrate the failure of the attempt to assassinate King James 1. This year it coincided with the American Presidential election which celebrated the failure to assassinate Donald Trump by decisively giving him a second term as the American President. The old British custom of burning effigies of hate figures would no doubt appeal to the 47th President. 

The world has reacted with a muted astonishment but it was always a strong possibility. Trump had created several populist narratives that appealed to the emotional beliefs of a significant proportion of American citizens who buy into his loathsome homilies. Despite the worldwide influence of American companies and the financial and military muscle of the USA, the majority of its citizens have an island mentality and are deeply rooted in a small-town culture, think of Ebbing, Missouri. They are cut off from the rest of the world by the two largest oceans, the American Dream is ever more elusive and most working Americans don't have long holidays. They are less worldly and globally aware than Europeans and Asians. 

Donald Trump is the master of tapping into their distrust of the educated elite who dominate the institutions of American society and who have more progressive, or woke, political instincts than the majority of the American voters. They do not want to be swamped with more immigration, resent the cost of living increases as wages stagnate, and do not want to lose their freedom to burn gas and oil or shoot guns. They have little in common with a more inclusive and progressive Europe in which the UK is far more closely aligned on social, environmental and economic issues.

The reaction to Trump's victory has more than a whiff of hypocrisy. Presidents, Prime Ministers and Oligarchs have fallen over each other to congratulate and reassure him of their desire to work alongside the USA. It is a response to their fear of economic retaliation that he has threatened to weaponise against countries and regimes unprepared to make unilateral deals with him.  Contrary to Trump's promise to make America great again, there is a lot of evidence suggesting that his direction of travel may have the opposite effect as it withdraws its trade and environmental agreements and diminishes its military involvement. This will seriously affect the wider world economy, climate change, and international cooperation. Paradoxically, it may make America lesser again as its trade declines and a new world order takes shape.

There are several main concerns about what happens next.

Climate Action requires the world's nations to work collaboratively to ensure that the targets have been set or met by all nations working together. Trump has shown by his statements that he is dismissive of climate change and has no commitment to climate action. He has given strong support to drilling for oil and gas and claims that America has more oil and gas than the rest of the world which is beautiful. His threats to withdraw from the Paris Agreement and COP will result in serious damage and give license to other non-believers to follow suit. His motorcades are a visible example of his disdain for any environmental integrity. 

The United Nations and NATO are both essential organisations to ensure peace and protect the weaker nations from poverty, provide relief from emergencies, tackle famine and disease and challenge the activities of tyrants and despots when they seek to expand their empires, carry out genocide or infringe human rights. Trump has little regard for the United Nations which he sees as competition to American hegemony and he sees NATO as an expensive tax on the USA which must be funded more fully by Europe. 

Ukraine and Gaza are wars that have resulted in thousands of unnecessary deaths and show no sign of finishing. Negotiations are difficult with unrepentant aggressors and determined defenders of sovereign territories. American arms manufacturers provide the vast majority of weapons being used by Ukraine and Israel. Trump's claim to settle the Ukraine war in 24 hours is a craven notion that would trade Ukrainian territory under the threat of cutting the supply of weapons, This would be the opposite solution than in Gaza, the further supply of American weapons will continue to enable the destruction of Gaza, where 45,000 citizens have already been killed and over 70% of buildings and infrastructure have been destroyed. This is despite the United Nations' 1947 agreement to partition Palestine into two states, Palestine and Israel, and their support for a ceasefire. Netanyahu seeks to eliminate the possibility of a two-state solution and Trump is likely to be supportive. This would be despite a motion from 52 countries, mainly in the Middle East, to stop the supply of weapons to Israel which are largely provided by the USA. Trump's belligerence could detonate a far wider conflict in the Middle East. He has shown little respect for the United Nations and its agencies that provide humanitarian relief and medical aid.

Tariffs are his favourite word because increasing tariffs will restrict imports from other nations particularly those whom he feels damage American business. In this respect, he negotiates and behaves as a transactional businessman. Someone who always wants to win a deal rather than secure a long-term relationship or establish a new initiative which will give wider long-term benefits to all sides. Trump is for the short term and for his own interest. These align with populist opinion in the United States and he uses this as a justification for many of his policies.

Economic policy in Trump's second term. is about reducing taxes and huge reductions in federal spending. Elon Musk has inveigled his way into being the frontrunner to deliver massive savings in government departments and agencies. We know how effective he has been in downsizing Twitter into X or should that be x and in the process losing millions of users and 79% of its value according to Google AI. The savings in federal spending are assumed to be achieved by reducing the number of departments and staff employed by federal agencies. However, most federal spending is on the military, welfare payments and Medicare, and all will be protected vigorously by its adherents. This could be a revelation to Musk who will face his armageddon if he fails the antichrist.  Meanwhile, oil and gas companies will be given new licenses and the Rust Belt will be magically reinvigorated as was promised in 2016 but with little effect. A film starring Frances McDormand as a released felon reprising that day in Butler, Pennsylvania is more likely than Trump rescuing the Rust Belt. 

Russia and China relationships will be revisited by Trump. They are the two nations with the resources and military strength to challenge the USA. Trump believes that he has the acumen to make deals with them that were beyond the capacity of previous Presidents who have been controlled by the federal establishment. In the case of Russia, he sees an opportunity to allow Putin to carry out and retain land from other nations such as Ukraine and Georgia in exchange for terminating the war by the USA reducing its provision of weapons to Ukraine. Relations with China will be based on the threat of increased tariffs for imported goods and securing more beneficial trade deals. The consequence may well benefit the United States as well as Russia and China but will have repercussions across the rest of the world. He believes in bilateral transactions rather than negotiated and nuanced treaties that engage a far larger number of nations.

Immigration is the other big-ticket policy. Trump promises to significantly reduce the number of unauthorised immigrants. Under President Biden, this achieved a high in 2023 of 3.2 million according to statista. This compares with 2.6 million authorised immigrants in 2022. Mexico and Central American countries dominate both legal and illegal immigration to the United States. Trump has promised the mass deportation of 10 million or more illegal migrants and said that there is no price tag on this. The American Immigration Council has put a price of $88bn per annum to achieve this over ten years. That's over nine times the value of X(x), formerly known as Twitter, each year. Elon will have his work cut out to find the savings or cryptocurrency to pay for this. It is a reminder that Trump seldom worries about detail when making announcements, they are aimed at giving oxygen to the emotional concerns and self-interest of a third of the electorate. Remember that more Americans didn't vote than voted for Trump  The impact of losing the immigrant workforce, let alone the damage to their families and children's education is not part of his narrative but could seriously damage the  American economy.

The Department of Justice is headed by an Attorney General appointed by the President. Trump will select someone known to be supportive and loyal. He/she will be expected to suspend his 34 felony charges and criminal convictions and pursue those who have taken action against him, some of whom Trump has named already. It suggests that Justice will become a controversial issue with constitutional implications. This will extend to International agreements that stand in the way of Trump's disruptive agendas.

All of these consequences suggest that the USA could become far more insular.  The growth of gated communities in many towns and cities to protect the wealthy could be upsized to make America a gated country as it erects borders and removes itself from trade agreements and global organisations. Trump is more likely to make America a super-sized Dingley Dell than great again. Is it worth the effort of other nations to genuflect on President Trump? Trump's America will not be the UK or Europe's special or beautiful friend. It is more likely to be the End of the American Dream, particularly with the cast of disruptors that Donald Trump Jnr is advocating for key positions. As a film, it would be a cross of Dirty Dozen with Ocean's Eleven and a box office hit but without a star-spangled cast, just junketeers.

At half-mast

Time for a devolved democratic budget

The countdown to Rachel Reeves's budget is reaching a fever pitch of despair from the government and opposition benches. There is a sense that we will get more of the same permutations of taxes and spending cuts that have been a major reason for the poor performance of the UK compared to other nations over much of the past 45 years. 

The media obsession with tax increases, unfunded projects and the NHS has dominated the airwaves and plays into the belief that these are the metrics to be examined when the chancellor delivers her budget on 30 October. They are missing the real issue, the government's model for budgeting is fundamentally flawed. It is failing to devolve budgets to those who have the knowledge, the contact with their customers and the willingness to innovate and work in partnership and at a pace that gets things done. We need a more devolved inclusive and locally accountable budget process. A step change on par with what Keynes advised and Attlee introduced following his landslide election victory of 1945.

The UK government's derisory budget management stems from what Mrs Thatcher saw as too much public spending and the profligacy of councils and other public bodies in delivering public services. She introduced the tendering of public services, the sale of council houses, the privatisation of many state-run services and reduced public expenditure. She centralised many local democratic services to be run by government departments and agencies. They in turn were told to contract out these services to private outsourcing companies. She also abolished the GLC, Metropolitan Councils and John Major extended this spree of abolitions to Scotland by reorganising local government in Scotland to eliminate most of the regional councils.

This was followed by John Major's introduction of Private Finance Initiatives, later to become Public Private Partnerships. These mechanisms to remove capital expenditure from government spending were embraced by Blair and Brown who were equally wedded to centralisation. By these mechanisms, central government effectively defenestrated local government and replaced it with an ill-considered collective of rapacious multi-service outsourcing companies that are now the operators of what used to be public services. Once ensconced in this role they have used their claim of greater efficiency and near monopoly position to ramp up costs and maximise profits. 

Evidence from various audits shows that the quality of service has often diminished and costs have escalated in many of these services. In some instances, massive profits have been taken and companies have subsequently been bankrupted by the debt they have taken on. When this happens the risk reverts to the government which has had to either bail out 'too big to fail' companies by allowing them to win more contracts or to take services back into public control. Notable examples include probation services, rail franchises and some academy schools. The outcome of these failures has been a double jeopardy for the government and more importantly for those dependent on these critical services. It is one of the tragedies of the last forty years but has escaped detailed examination because of the lack of transparency about the way an ever-increasing swathe of public services has been centralised, privatised and gutted from any form of democratic accountability. 

The expectation is that Rachel Reeves will allow the Treasury to impose another round of budgetary control that reinforces the trend of removing democratic control at both the local and national levels. The Treasury has little confidence in other Whitehall departments to reconfigure services other than by the simple expedient of controlling the size of the budget and telling them to find efficiencies. 

They do not recognise that one of the reasons public expenditure has exploded is not the profligacy of councils or other accountable bodies, who generally keep within budgets and who were normally prudent in the control of public expenditure before compulsory tendering of services. The contracting out of services and the insistence of PFI and PPP for capital investment have transferred much of the operation of public services to multi-service outsourcing conglomerates. They compete in a restrictive market that largely excludes local companies that cannot bear the cost of complex tendering procedures. Having won the contracts they have been able to escalate prices as the contracts were often far from watertight and councils and local companies have lost the capacity and expertise to win back contracts.  

Rachel Reeves should be divesting the management and procurement of these outsourced services from centralised Whitehall departments to the regions and councils. There is evidence that this is having some benefits where Metro Mayors have been trusted to take back control. They are far better positioned, as are Councils to specify appropriate service level agreements and to encourage local companies to deliver services according to needs, not some generalised specification that takes no cognisance of local circumstances and priorities. Massive outsourcing service companies like G4S, Capital, and Serco, which have become so dominant, cannot be allowed to be the justification for centralised government budgeting. 

At the core of a more effective model of government budgeting is an understanding that the specification of services is best done with an understanding of local knowledge and priorities. Local democratic bodies and local businesses have been victims of untrammelled centralisation. Innovation and adoption of new technologies are seldom implemented successfully by overly complex government initiatives. The way for the Starmer/Reeves government to achieve growth is by befriending and trusting local democratic bodies to deliver the services and infrastructure. Devolving budgeting in this way would accelerate the mission of growth and ensure it is more than another mantra.

Podcasts: The Rest is Politics US

Two years ago, podcasts were an unknown medium to me. Today, I listen to more podcasts than I watch television. I began with the odd football podcast then discovered specialist ones that covered topics on the environment, politics and world affairs. These subjects are only cursorily dealt with by news programmes that are bloated with the affairs of celebrities. I then discovered the-rest-is-politics with Rory Stewart and Alistair Campbell, two political thinkers who have an incredible knowledge of the world as well as UK politics. They also tap into their network of contacts of eminent leaders from politics to AI for in-depth interviews on the leading podcast. Although Campbell and Stewart had been at the heart of the Blair/Brown and Cameron/May governments respectively, they paired up and discovered that they agreed on many issues, and if not they would disagree agreeably. What a game changer from the Punch and Judy politics served by Parliament and fired at us by many of our newspapers and much of our social media.

I have just listened to the latest episode of the sister podcast by Katty Kay and Anthony Scaramucci, the rest is politics US, which captivated my interest. As always it provides a ringside commentary on the flaws, fantasies and fortunes of the two polar opposite candidates in the American Presidential Election. It pitches an intelligent, humane black woman against a rich, misogynist, non-apologist white man. Despite Scaramucci being a lifelong Republican, and Kay being brought up in the BBC balanced reporting code, there is no doubt which of the candidates they don't want to win. They have just completed a UK tour of Birmingham, Glasgow, Cardiff and London debating the issues and answering questions. They attracted an audience of 13,000 at an event in the O2 arena in London.  They are a compelling listen and have deep insights into the American Presidential election campaign. It was a stroke of genius to bring these two exceptional characters together. 

Katty Kay with her cut-glass English accent and Swiss citizenship has lived and worked in the United States for 30 years as a journalist with the BBC but with far more strings to her impressive career. Her knowledge and network of contacts in American politics are wide and close to the candidates. She curates and reports their comments in an articulate and disciplined manner. She has encyclopedic inside knowledge of the election process having covered the last six Presidential elections. 

Anthony Scaramucci is a financier who famously became Donald Trump's Director of Communications when he became president but lasted only 10 days before resigning in despair at Trump's self-absorbed chaotic style of governing. Scaramucci comes from a New York Italian background and has a colourful way with words. His analysis is strewn with a zinging vocabulary and a minestrone of metaphors. It ensures a lively dialogue with the word-perfect explanations of Katty Kay. Their chemistry is potent, Scaramucci is clearly enthralled by Kay's intelligence and posh English breeding. Like Rory Stewart and Alistair Campbell, who invited them to do the US version of 'the rest is politics', they listen to each other's views and have adopted the maxim to disagree agreeably, which is not that often.

They also know how to engage and ensnare their audiences. Scaramucci confesses that the weeklong tour of UK cities was the most flattering and inspiring thing he had ever done in his rollercoaster of a career. Katty Kay was greatly touched by the enthusiasm of UK audiences and their granular knowledge of American Politics. As the day of reckoning approaches, this is the podcast to listen to. It is much better informed and entertaining than the alternative podcasts focusing on the American Presidential Election. The News Agents podcast with ex-BBC presenters, Emily Mattis and  John Sopel, and the BBC Americast podcast with the BBC ex and present Washington correspondents, Justin Webb and Sarah Smith were my goto ways of keeping abreast with American podcasts but they seem a bit lame by comparison.

Katty Kay is on the ball when she describes the election as causing global trepidation. Polls are predicting that Trump is 16% ahead of Harris with American men. I'm with the women and Katty and Anthony but Trump may have tuned into the zeitgeist of the American voters.

A grand day out in Edinburgh and the Scottish Parliament.

It was a 7:15am start to catch the train to Edinburgh for a meeting in the Scottish Parliament. It is quite a long time since I last joined the throng of commuters and even longer since I had attended meetings in the Scottish Parliament. I was anxious about being invited to give evidence to the Committee examining local government finance. We had submitted a paper to the Committee that focussed more on the need for a radical reset of the governance of Scotland's public services. Finance was only part of the problem.

The reform of local government in 1996, austerity and the cumulative centralisation of public services by successive Scottish Governments have emasculated Councils. Their ability to tackle local priorities, engage with their communities, tap into local knowledge, develop networks with local businesses and nurture the energy and goodwill of communities had been steadily eroded in the 25 years since the formation of the Scottish Parliament. 

Approval ratings and voter turnout for councils have plummeted and trust in Councils is only slightly better than the Scottish Government, 38% against 32%, according to the Scottish Household Survey. Yet Councils are more likely to deliver appropriate progressive solutions and innovations in their localities than central government which is too remote and less qualified to manage services. Councils are essential players in tackling issues like social care, climate change, poverty, economic growth and generally improving the common weal. Our message is that councils should be seen as friends of the government, not as a miscreant form of local administration.

My colleague and I felt a bit like dinosaurs amidst the younger MSPs and civil servants who gave us time and respect as we peddled the experience and knowledge from our lived experience. We were younger than that then and, maybe, wiser than that now.  If you've a couple of hours to spare you can check the video of the meeting here.

Bill and I sauntered back to Waverley station and had a coffee in the Fruitmarket cafe before his train left for the dark side of Edinburgh, Livingstone. I was free and feeling easy, there was an exhibition of Ibrahim Mahama, songs about roses in the the adjoining warehouse space. I was lured in by the massive photos of the work gangs building railways in what was the Gold Coast Colonial Railway. These were two subjects close to my heart. I had always loved the stupendous engineering of railways, the sight, sound, smell and touch of steam locomotives remain evocative memories of skipping around engine sheds and watching steam locomotives when I was growing up. 

A large picture of a diesel locomotive made for the Gold Coast Railway by English Electric in Preston conjured up fond memories of my teenage years. I became friends with a Ghanaian woman who was the first black person to live on the housing estate where we lived. Her husband was a graduate engineer and he had come to the UK to work for English Electric, now British Aerospace. They had been allocated a council house in the days when companies had agreements with councils for housing key workers. She had an elegance and intelligence that were compelling but none of the other mothers in the neighbourhood would speak to her. I was chastised by neighbours for spending time talking to her, she would stop and talk to me when walking to the shops with her baby. I occasionally babysat for her and learnt not only about Ghana and her philosophy of life but also witnessed her experience of isolation as an immigrant mother to the UK in the 1960s. When I went to university she gave me the best advice of anyone, 'just be yourself and you will do well in life'. 

I love the occasions when you have time and no plan. As I left the exhibition I headed up the steps of Fleshmarket Close, a magic tuntaway (a secret passage) into the innards of Old Edinburgh. I was meandering along the High Street when it occurred to me that I could go and look at some gravel bikes that I had been encouraged to buy following a recent hillwalking event and Edinburgh has lots of bike shops. Even better, I could phone my friend Neil, who's been heavily into cycling since we used to ride to school together on his Dad's tandem. There was no reply so I set off to find the bike cooperative, Neil returned my call twenty minutes later, he had been exercising on his turbo trainer. I was given the bus numbers to catch to his house in Dalry and we could go for a late lunch. 

Princess Street was buzzing with visitors and when the number 4 hurtled past me I chased it to the next bus stop but by the time I had weaved my way through the luggage of the tourists and reached the door of the bus, I was a second too late. The next bus would be in 9 minutes said the electronic notice in the shelter. After 7 minutes the bus disappeared off the screen into Edinburgh's Bermuda Triangle of missing buses, the next one was allegedly 8 minutes away. A constant stream of empty trams sidled past more or less bereft of passengers. Edinburgh trams never go anywhere you want to go and unless you live in Edinburgh the bus pass doesn't work on them despite the whole of Scotland paying for this expensive white elephant. Meanwhile, all the buses are crammed because they have really useful routes and destinations.

Neil suggested we go to the Athletic Arms (the Diggers), his nearest pub for a couple of pints. It is one of those institutions that specialises in real beers, has over 500 whiskies on sale and provides the staples of a good pub - basic food, darts, a snug room, sport on TV and a happy and regular clientele. They also have a £3 ale of the day and today it was 'As You Like It', a hoppy pale ale. We talked about old friends and families, bikes and cycling, sheds and politics. Neil advised me against a gravel bike and before we went to the pub showed me his two oldish mountain bikes, which he thought were more robust than gravel bikes, he also has a couple of road bikes and a tandem in his excellent and sustainable uhut shed. Neil is not convinced about the need for disc brakes, they are just another unnecessary complication like electronic gear changers. Upgrading my mountain bike was his solution. Asking for advice on a new bike is perplexing.  John told me to get an electric bike, most of the friends in his cycling group have now switched to them. My original advice was to buy a gravel bike, which would be a lot lighter and more versatile for road and touring than a road or mountain bike. Three friends and three different solutions!? 

It was after 4pm and time to get back to the station for my train. I ran for a bus and made Haymarket in good time. The man who sat next to me on the train was on his phone and sounded interesting. When he finished I struck up a conversation with him, he was a manager with Forestry Enterprise and we had half an hour chatting about Scottish Forestry. We shared a love of the Caledonian Pine Forst in Glen Affric and the Torridonian Mountains. I learnt why beech and sycamore weren't planted in Scotland and why good timbers like Ash and Larch were no longer planted. Norway Spruce still dominated the market because it was whiter than Scots Pine, which was darker and mainly used in structural stud work. Almost 80% of UK timber was imported mainly from Scandinavian countries. We could not compete with France or the United States for Oak because they grew them on good quality soils, timber in Britain grew less rapidly and in poorer soils. He also explained how they acquired additional low value land to plant trees like birch and rowan to ensure that they hit their performance targets for native species. We could have kept talking all the way to Inverness. 

It had been a grand day out and I received a message from a friend upon arriving home. As well as a thank you for gifting my Tubular Bells album to his grandson there was a compliment about our evidence to the Committee. "Watched your appearance in Parliament. Both you and Bill spoke compellingly. I quite take your point about the persistent centralisation of decision-making and the imposition by one tier of governance upon another."

In full flow

Building the Gold Coast Colonial Railway

Coincidence of childhood memories

Fleshmarket Close

Diggers with pints of As You Like It

The King's Speech

Beefeaters searching for gunpowder

Wednesday, 17 July 2024

It was the King's Speech, time for Sir Keir Starmer's government to set out its legislation programme for the year ahead. There were 40 Bills covering much of what had been in the manifesto -"a mission-led approach" to delivering the changes that were needed to provide the growth that is essential to rectify the damage wreaked on public services by austerity, poor procurement, Brexit and Covid incompetence and 14 years of slogan rich but delivery light governments.

But first, we had to watch the charades at Westminster as hundreds of footmen, soldiers, titled lackeys, and the King and Queen, together with horses, coaches, swords, crowns and hats were dribbled through London. Meanwhile, the Yeoman of the Guards wearing royal red tunics and stockings, white ruffs and black Panama hats were searching the bowels of the Palace of Westminster for gunpowder. It must have made King Charles and Queen Camilla feel at home as they too were dolled up in their ancestors' old clothes, medals and jewels.

We then watched Black Rod lead 649 MPs from the Commons to the Lords and gain access by knocking on the door that had just been slammed in her face. The MPs went in two by two, hurrah, hurrah! They laughed and smiled, the election was over and even Sir Keir and Rishi looked like best mates, maybe realising that they were the last PMs still in the House after the demise of Theresa, Boris and mad Liz.

It was the longest Queen's or King's Speech since the one in 1945. Starmer's speech was delivered without a stammer. My main regret was that it held back from some of the more radical measures on matters like community care, housing, land ownership and digital identity, all of which could have turbocharged the well-being of citizens and communities.

As Lewis Carroll advised and Tony Blair admitted: "In the end ...We only regret the chances we didn’t take, the relationships we were afraid to have, and the decisions we waited too long to make.” Sage advice for the new government.

What about Local Government?

Amidst all the flotsam of policy pledges and gimmicks being thrown out by the political parties as they fill in their fake dating app details for their electorates, something is missing. There is no commitment to respond to the immense damage done to local government services since George Osborne declared austerity in 2010. The total spending power of councils in England fell by 26% between 2010/11 and 2020/21 according to the National Audit Office. In real terms, core spending has been reduced by 11% between 2010/11 and 2024/25 according to a Parliamentary report on Local government finances: impact on communities. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland receive equivalent funding from Westminster, so these figures give a measure of the massive scale of decline in locally provided public services.

After the cost of living and NHS waiting times, the most heard issues from the public during the election campaign are, or were, the responsibility of local government. There are many of them - the lack of housing, shortage of community care, potholes, poor and diminishing public transport, fewer support staff for special needs children, run-down schools, the cost and shortage of nurseries, closing sports facilities and libraries, declining town centres, slow responses to planning, building and other applications, failing water and sewage services with pollution to rivers and beaches, reductions in community policing, and a woeful lack of activities for young people. 

According to the National Audit Office, the services with the greatest reduction in spending up to 2020 were cultural (-37%), planning and development (-36%), non-school education (-32%), housing (-26%), and roads and transport (-24%).  A third of all libraries closed and 14% of bus route mileage was closed. This is a staggering decline in public service provision exacerbated by the growing number of elderly requiring social care and the escalating costs of many outsourced services.

Who determines what councils can spend? Well, central government whether it is Westminster or Holyrood. They have both been merciless in stripping out grant support for councils and/or freezing council tax over the past 14 years, That is how austerity works, it means that the opprobrium for reduced public services can be devolved onto councils. The increased financial support for the NHS and the government's obsession with mega projects like HS2, Nuclear Power, Brexit and COVID have been at the expense of the provision of everyday public services for communities. Levelling up has been less than 10% of the funds withdrawn from councils. The evidence is that these funds, when allocated, have more likely gone to the constituencies of government MPs so that they can claim the kudos rather than to the most needy towns and communities. 

Staffing levels in local government have been severely reduced, knowledge has been lost, innovation and renewal has been stultified and talented staff have been replaced by consultants and outsourcing companies. It is a bleak scenario that the UK and Scottish governments have imposed on local government. Cynically, it allows them to distance themselves from culpability. The press and media are no longer interested in local issues, newspapers have been closed or regionalised under some franchise arrangements. The soap operas of Westminster and Holyrood have kept them busy with all the corruption and faux cage-fighting that exists in these bastions of our dumbed-down democracies.

Even the dozens of podcasts that invade our lives fail to focus on this narrative of despair about local democracy. They do not seem to understand that most of the life-changing innovations for people and places were designed and built by our municipalities in times when they were free from the tentacles of control and inspection, budgetary control and centralised edicts that emanate from central governments. Central governments that have never been effective in managing or delivering services, look at the defence procurement or the cost of inquiries, not to mention the cost of building or maintaining parliaments. 

Yet history tells us that most essential services were innovated and introduced by local government, not central government. Most public health measures including the provision of water and sewage, schools, hospitals, poor houses, gas works, electricity power stations, social housing, public transport, libraries, residential homes, home care, and leisure facilities all emerged from local municipal, church or philanthropic endeavours. They were refined and shared between municipalities, ensuring a rapid spread and refinement of best practices. 

Why would any progressive central government want to remove the ability of local government to  drive improvement and innovation other than to fulfil their own sense of entitlement to power? Unlike most European countries, the UK local government is not enshrined in a written constitution, it is subject to control by the central government. It is time for this to change and along with other top priorities, this should be a commitment for the next government.  Change is required to restore local democracy, change is not just a slogan,

An Alphabetic Legacy of the Tory Years

I have listened to several speeches by the Prime Minister since he announced the general election would take place on 4 July. The outgoing parliament has been one of the most corrupt and disorganised in my lifetime with more cases of sexual misdemeanors and suspensions than ever before. We have had three Prime Ministers, two of whom have been dismissed by the Tory Parliamentary Party for their indiscretions and sinking the economy. With opinion polls indicating that this has reduced the Tory vote to a mere 23% of the electorate, some contrition might have played well. After all, Rishi Sunak had promised integrity, professionalism and accountability when taking over from Liz Truss.

Forget it, he has immediately weaponised the party's social media, the right-wing press and think tanks to pour lies and half-truths about the opposition parties. His speeches, laced with lazy sound bites and the abuse of statistics, have made me apoplectic with rage. At least we knew that Boris Johnson just made up the facts as he went along, Sunak tries to give the impression that they are accurate. It confirms all the evidence that has piled up during his tenure as PM. He has delivered on nothing and his only plan is to get the hell out of Downing Street as soon as possible in the second half of the year when the election is called.

Listening to the PM as he flies around the country completely junking any accountability for his non-delivery of services or broken promises prompted me to scribble a catalogue of disasters during the l4 years of government since George Osborne launched austerity. The mistakes and incompetence of the Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak governments have devastated public services, prevented growth, kicked the righting of tragedies into the long grass and reduced the UK's influence in the world. As an aide memoir, I have listed the most egregious policies and tragedies, the MPs suspended and those most responsible and the people and organisations who have put their shoulders to the tipping point of chaos. I am sure I have missed many events, some MPs who have helped create the mess and there will be lots of individuals, donors and organisations who are equally responsible but less transparent to those listed.   

Events, Tragedies and Cock Ups  

  Austerity   

Brexit

Climate Change

          Community Care 

Contaminated Blood Scandal

Cost of Living

Covid-19

Debt

Emergency Waiting Times -NHS

Fracking

          Fuel Escalator 

Grenfell Towers

           House Building 

HS2 & Heathrow Expansion

Immigration

Insulation of Homes

Indyref 2

Justice System

King's Coronation

Levelling Up

Leveson Inquiry

Local Democracy

Metropolitan Police

NHS Reform (2013)

Oil Licences

Olympic Legacy

Partygate

Policy Soundbites

Post Office Horizon IT

Prisons

Public Services

Queen's Funeral

River/Beach Pollution

          Rail Franchises 

School Catchments & Support Services

        Skill Training 

Strikes

Trade Agreements

Train Price Ticketing

United Kingdom

          University Funding and Foreign Students 

VIP fast-track for PPE

Vote Leave Campaign

Windrush Scandal

World Beating Jingoism

XIV -years in power

Youth activities

Generation Z

The cast of MPs involved in the Tragedy

Dame Andrea Jenkyns

Dame Andrea Leadsom

Andrew Budgen*

Andrew Griffiths*

Baron Andrew Lansley

Alex Salmond*

Boris Johnson*

Chris Grayling

Chris Huhne*

Chris Pincher*

Crispin Blunt*

Lord David Cameron

Sir David Davies

 David Warburton*

Dominic Raab*

Douglas Ross

Esther McVey

Sir Gavin Williamson*

George Osborne

Grant Shapps

Sir Ian Duncan Smith

Imran Ahmad Khan*

Sir Jacob Reece-Mogg

Sir Jeffrey Donaldson*

Jeremy Corbyn*

Jeremy Hunt

          Sir John Whittingdale 

Jo Swinson

Julian Knight*

Kemi Badenoch

Kwasi Kwarteng

Lee Anderson*

Liz Truss

Liam Fox*

Matt Hancock*

Michael Gove

Baroness Michelle Mone*

Nadim Zahawi*

Nadine Dorries*

Neil Parish*

Nick Clegg

Nicola Sturgeon

Owen Paterson*

Peter Bone*

 Dame Priti Patel*

Rishi Sunak

          Robert Jenrick  

Rob Roberts*

Scott Benton*

Sir Simon Clarke

Steve Baker

Suella Braverman*

Therese Coffey

Uriah Heap

Sir Vince Cable

William Wragg*

       Yuri Geller 

        Zac Goldsmith 

*   MPs suspended or resigned or subject to criminal investigation

Supported by

Andrew Neil

Lord Anthony Bamford

Sir Charles Moore

Centre for Policy Studies

Baroness Dido Harding

Dominic Cummings

Lord Evgeny Lebedev

Elon Musk

Lord David Frost 

Duke of York

Frank Hester

Sir Frederick Barclay

GB News

Institute of Economic Affairs

Jeremy Clarkson

Kelvin MacKenzie

Laura Kuensberg

Mathew Elliot

Paul Dacre

Paula Vennells

Policy Exchange

Rupert Murdoch

Simon Case

           Tony Abbott 

Viscount Rothermere

X formerly known as Twitter