Mountebanks of Reform

Crashing out is becoming a habit for the leader of the Mountebanks

Back in January, the then Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, refused to allow Andy Burnham, the Mayor of Greater Manchester,  to stand in the Gorton and Denton by-election that was subsequently won by the Greens. He claimed it was to avoid an expensive and time-consuming by-election for the Mayor of Greater Manchester if Andy Burnham had won the by-election. At the local elections in May, the Reform Party took 30.7% of the votes in the 10 local authorities that make up the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. Labour received 23.6% of the vote and the Greens 19.1%. The Reform Party had become the dominant party in Greater Manchester. Keir Starmer had signed his own dismissal notice.

By this time, 

At the next by-election in Makersfield, Andy Burnham was allowed to stand, and subsequently won in a seat that had been expected to be won by the Reform Party after the results of the May local elections. Within days, Starmer had resigned, the election for the new Mayor of Greater Manchester was called, and six months had been wasted. Starmer's vision of time was metronomic but set in months and years, not days.

Meanwhile, Andy Burnham had become the new PM and was cooking up a storm of new initiatives and zealously dominating social media. He was generating some hope after the moribund days of decline under Johnson, Truss, Sunak and Starmer. 

Starmer had not been wrong about the cost, or the slow pace of the election count as we waited up until 11pm on the day after the poll to get the result. His handling of calling by-elections characterised his period in office: mindful of cost, devoid of imagination and always cautious. His demise was his failure to inspire or provide a glimpse of hope that the UK needs in these troubled times. The Reform Party had become the gathering post for the Mountebanks who amplified the problems with all the deceit to be expected from their leaders, who are hard-core members of the very establishment that they mock.

Like so much else in the UK, the pace of the count was diabolical. The technology is there to do this count electronically; we piloted the technology for the Electoral Commission in 2002 for a ward by-election in Stirling. It led to the use of the technology in the 2007 combined Council Multi-Member Ward Election System and Scottish Parliament Additional Member Voting System. Both of these are much more complex than the Supplementary Voting System used in Greater Manchester. We had the results for both elections completed and the counters released from the count by 3am, just 5 hours later than the close of polls, not 25 hours later.

The Labour candidate, Bev Craig, won the Greater Manchester Mayor with 66.3% of the share of the vote, including the second preferences. Reform took 33.7%. The respective figures for first preferences were 47% to 21%, with 12% for the Greens. Yet at the Council elections in May the results were the other way round. Labour had 23.6% and Reform 30.7%; these should be most realistically compared with the first preference votes.

Once again, the Grand Old Duke of the Mountebanks, Nigel Farage, had marched his latest wheeze, the Reform Party, to the top of the hill, to see them have a great fall. He has lost his fabled ability to popularise the zeitgeist of despair, and even the sympathetic right-wing media and senior Reform members are distancing themselves from him.  Can all Nige's crypto and all Nige's friends ever put Reform together again? Well, there is plenty of evidence that this is unlikely, especially if Count Binface chips away at his votes in the Clacton by-election that he has brought upon himself. His previous incarnations as leader of the UKIP party died away in 2019, and the Brexit Party was killed off in 2021. It would appear that each of his regenerations to cheat death gets darker as he ages. Expect him to emerge from a TARDIS with a new gang of Mountebanks sometime soon. 

Dalek Party unveiled

Andy's Prehistoric Adventures

I switched on the BBC News to catch up on the new Prime Minister's cabinet appointments, and on came Andy's Prehistoric Adventures. I presumed that Laura Kuensberg had been re-employed to deploy her cynicism on the appointments before I realised that I had dialled into CBeebies. 

Alas, the News was an interview with Robert Jenrick; he was once the supposed saviour of the Tories but is now relegated as Nigel Farage's apologist. He was telling porkies about immigration, despite having been the immigration minister when net migration reached its peak of 745,000 in 2022; it fell to 171,000 in 2025. I had watched the transfer of power from Sir Keir Starmer to Andy Burnham earlier in the day. I welcomed the new PM's promise to work in collaboration across political parties and his instinctive commitment to devolving power to localities. I suppose that could be called a prehistoric adventure with democracy! The importance of place and less tribalism are vital ingredients for gaining pace and releasing the energy of both the public and private sectors working in step with each other at the local level, as they did before Westminster and Holyrood centralised business taxation and controlled and froze local expenditure. 

The responses to the new Prime Minister from world leaders and the devolved governments within the UK were positive and welcoming. They expressed a desire to work collaboratively, unlike the immediate messages from Reform and the Conservatives, which respectively called for an election and criticised policies that had not been announced. The UK media had a cynical tone; they were peeved that they had not been able to obtain leaks about new cabinet members and policies.

Most of the management of the transition has been well handled, apart from the hasty and populist announcement by Lucy Powell, the deputy leader of the Labour Party, that digital identity will be abandoned. This will make it more difficult to manage immigration, voting reform, and information sharing among health, police, education, and social work. This could vastly improve our response to child abuse, community care and special education. Most of the other broad hints of new policies address issues that have hindered progress and been the reason Keir Starmer lost the support of the press, voters and Labour MPs. They seem to have landed well, and the optimistic mood in the Downing Street sunshine was enhanced by a crowd of scousers, being respectful to Evertonian Andy Burnham. They should have sung You'll Never Walk Alone!

It is 3pm and still no announcements. I desperately hope for ministers who will not be afraid to instigate some disruption in the tax system and speed up the pace of change.  The new PM needs competent ministers brave enough to drive change, unlike some of the moribund crew who supported Keir Starmer.. 

Andy caps Captain Flip Flop

It was the morning after the Makerfield by-election that was won by Andy Burnham with far more ease than any of the media or pundits had anticipated. His acceptance speech emphasised his commitment to giving priority to place over party politics and a willingness to work across political boundaries. Next up was Richard Tice, the overbearing stooge sent out to wallpaper over Nigel Farage's many indiscretions and translate his quotes into something different to what Captain Farage had really said. 

Whilst Farage was posting himself in an England shirt to support England's 4-2 victory over Croatia in the World Cup, using an old photo from the Euros 2 years ago, Sergeant Tice was touring the studios, claiming that Reform had performed astoundingly well despite receiving only 35% of the vote.  This was well short of the 51% in the recent Council elections, when Labour received only 23% of the vote. Even the opinion polls leading up to the by-election had averaged  43% of the vote for Reform. It is amazing how successful bots can be at influencing polling and how gullible the journalists who are seduced by them are. 

Tice accused Burnham of not campaigning as the Labour Party candidate, which is why he won. Voters were getting rid of Starmer, who was the real Labour Party. Tice then accused Burnham of being more left-wing and argued that we needed to eradicate socialism. Tice has a rare ability to tie himself in knots as he shuffles through excuses. He seems to forget that the so-called Reform Party is actually a private company with no mechanism for its members to have any say in its policies. This allows the board of Reform to rapidly change its posturing on any issue that might entice voters.  

Tice finished with a pre-prepared put down: "Andy Burnham was Captain Flip Flop". He should know; he has been the chief apologist for the real Captain Flip Flop ever since he was deposed as the chairman of Reform plc. Like many others, he has been infected by the Farage Derangement Syndrome, unlike Makerfield, which has acquired immunity from the pathogen of Reform.

Captain Flip Flop celebrating England's 4-2 victory from a 2024 time capsule

Meanwhile, in the real world of the UK Government, the issue is how and when the leadership of the Labour Party passes from Sir Keir Starmer to Andy Burnham. Starmer has made several statements saying that he would contest any attempt at a leadership bid by Burnham or Wes Streeting. I suspect that his duty to the country, the Party and his undoubted integrity will lead him to resign after he has heard the feedback from his cabinet colleagues and acknowledges that the games a bogey. This would ensure a more dignified legacy in the eyes of the party and maybe the wider electorate in the longer term than an ignominious defeat if he stands against Andy Burnham.

Four Score Years and then?

The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, ... their strength, labour and sorrow... is soon cut off, and we fly away. Psalm 90:10 KJV

FIFA Peace Prize: Art of the Deal

The self-appointed boss of the world reached four score years at the weekend by reason of some shady deals. He celebrated his birthday, whilst commemorating, or should that be demeaning, the 250th birthday of the United States with cage fighting on the White House Lawn with invites to his acolytes and accomplices.

He then flew to the G7 summit in France, where he claimed credit for stopping the war he started with Iran and re-opening the Straits of Hormuz to world shipping and signing a Memorandum of Understanding with Iran in the Palace of Versailles. His ego, as ever, was floating on the helium of trash-talking and his boast of another Peace deal was posted with his usual metronomic contradictions on Truth Social. 

Destitution

Since taking up his second term of office, he has reduced the United States' contribution to United Nations Aid from $14.1billion to $3.38billion. and withdrawn funding to 66 international organisations. At home, the Institute for Policy Studies estimates that through his Big Ugly Bill, he has made cuts of $73billion to Medicaid and heating and food support for low-income families, children and the homeless.

War

His expenditure on the wars he has executed in Venezuela and Iran has led to a 42% increase in war spending to $1.5 trillion. There have been no new aid bills to support Ukraine since he began his second term as President. $127 billion had been provided until then, but since there has been just a $ 20 billion loan for European NATO members to procure and provide American weapons to Ukraine. Since 2023, Israel has also received $16.3 billion in direct military aid for the war in Gaza. The underlying principle of most military aid is that it should be used to procure weapons, equipment and training from American firms or the stockpile of US weapons. Arguably, the American arms manufacturers are the largest beneficiaries of the Big Ugly Bill.

Peace

A Peace Prize was gifted to the President by FIFA president Gianni Infantino for making the world a safer place. A consolation for not receiving the Nobel Peace Prize from those woke Scandinavians. They had realised that there was not much peace breaking out in the countries where the 47th President of the USA had done deals. Ukraine, Gaza, Iran, Lebanon, Venezuela, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen were still in active conflict, and Cuba and Greenland were in the waiting room for his next tranche of peacemaking.

We can only hope that Psalm 90:10 comes to pass. And then?

Signing the Iran Peace Deal in the Palace of  Versailles

Keir is no Seer

As we begin to consume the journalistic flotsam from the May local government, Scottish and Welsh government elections, our journalists have given us a short menu of ready explanations for the seismic shift in voting patterns. Reform, the Nationalists and the Greens have banished Labour and the Tories to the democratic sin bin. Yet there is little analysis of the policies of the parties or the burning issues at Scottish, Welsh or English local levels. It is all about the personalities and the roulette table of who has run out of chips. None more so than Sir Keir Starmer.

Even respected journalists like Pippa Crerar of the Guardian seem more fixated on bringing down Prime Ministers; she has already claimed the scalp of Boris Johnson by exposing the profligacy of dodgy whisperers like Dominic Cummings and has now outed Peter Mandelson. Keir Starmer is in her sights, as he is for most other Parliamentary journalists, who are scouring the corridors of power and adjacent bars to gather details of plots from their secret cast of contacts. They are behaving like diary correspondents, but their celebrities are politicians. Unlike film and TV stars or game show contestants who are lionised, politicians are demonised. No wonder we have had five prime ministers in the last seven years. Mature functional democracies like Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland have had one, two, three and three respectively in the same period.

Meanwhile, the jackboots of populism are on the march. Keir Starmer accepted a suit, declared it and was hammered for corruption. Nigel Farage accepts £5million of cryptocurrency for his own personal use, which he doesn't declare, but it is already factored in as part of his cheeky chappie appeal. The fourth estate has lost its moral compass and is becoming guilty of hubris that is damaging our fragile democracy, which has no protection from a written constitution. 

Keir Starmer's government has shown fortitude in introducing an impressive array of policies to address priorities such as young children, health reform, housing, rent control, the minimum wage, and financial stability. After years of Austerity, Brexit, and Covid, the country needed measures to eradicate income inequality and improve public services that have been hollowed out since 2010. However, these policy changes have not been explained or reported well, nor have they progressed at any pace, as government processes become clogged by interdepartmental disputes and parliamentary inertia. Labour had also failed to set a positive agenda of change before the 2024 election, and by promising no changes to taxation, they thwarted their ability to make radical changes to the taxation regime that were necessary to create the headroom for radical policies.

The government focused too much on talking down the UK's problems and blaming the previous government. We get that, but give us some hope. They then made bad calls on national insurance increases, removing winter fuel payments and making several U-turns, some of which showed a lack of courage. It has created the sense of a government in office but not in power. There is a lack of a strategy, and Starmer's attempts to explain his decisions fall flat, devoid of any charisma, crispness or consistency as he wades through the attacks from opposition parties, the media and his own increasingly vocal MPs. 

Keir Starmer is basically honest and hard-working; he has had some success in his foreign policy, but the changes he promised have become bogged down in the Westminster inertia. He has lost or dismissed too many advisers and civil servants, which suggests that he is struggling in a job that has become almost impossible in the glare of the media and political inertia. The role of PM requires someone with a clear vision and the ability to communicate about the things that matter to the electorate, and with a veneer of pragmatic optimism. Unfortunately, Keir is no seer, which is why he is on the back foot defending the lack of progress and offering no alternative to incremental change. We need some progressive disruption and a brighter vision than the dull diazepam dystopian future that Starmer prescribes.  

Antichrist admonished

God forgive you, my president

Even in these crazy, rocket-fuelled days of dumb diplomacy, you couldn't make it up, but with a little help from AI, provided by his tech bros funders, he did. Not content with falling out with the EU, the UK, Norway, Canada, Mexico, most Middle East countries, Australia, South Korea,  China,  Cuba, Greenland and the United Nations, he has now insulted both the Pope and Tucker Carlson, the far-right MAGA broadcaster. 

And his endorsements of election candidates are becoming the Black Spot of the information age. Ask his nominations for New York Mayor, candidates for recent Congress elections or Victor Orban in Hungary. Since January 2025, we have been watching a badly scripted but unmissable soap opera or game show where the objective is to lose your friends and become a rogue state. He has done it in record time and joins Netanyahu and Putin in the hyperspace of nil morality. They should all be worried, assuming they are going to subject themselves to anything as stupid as elections. And Farage should be dreading an endorsement from his pal, who has made war, not peace and built no friends, just a gold-embossed ballroom.

Gaming Tool for White House Advisers

I have finished a rereading of Nineteen Eighty Four, and whilst I still find it a tedious slog, it contains some imaginative, but morally corrupt, concepts for destroying democracy that the White House have adopted. When thinking about doublespeak in the time of Trump, it occurred to me that triple gestures would make a good game for children or the White House advisers. Instead of Rock (fist), Paper (flat hand), Scissors (two fingers) it could be renamed War, Peace, Trump. Obviously, two fingers would be Trump, a fist would be War, and a flat hand would be Peace.

The rules are: Trump beats Peace, War beats Trump, and Peace beats War. 

Even the obsequious advisers in the White House might be able to explain this to Trump, although whether he could convince Netanyahu might be a stretch. And the game could be sponsored by those clever Norwegians who decide the Nobel Peace Prize.

Epstein's Entitled and Exploited Brits

Going

Going

Gone

Whilst we await the Epstein Files to unveil Trump's unredacted past, the latest batch has certainly nailed some worthy British scoundrels. Peter Mandelson, an ex-Lord, and Andrew, formerly known as Prince are both known knowns. In the past, I have had the misfortune to cross the paths of both of them, not directly but through their intermediaries. They both shared a sense of entitlement that semaphored their innate greed for wealth and ambitions for the highest office. 

Peter Mandelson had  been appointed the Director of Communications for the Labour Party in 1985. Along with a senior councillor, I had made a presentation of  Strathclyde's new Pre-Five policy at a large conference at the  School of Advanced Urban Studies (SAUS) at Bristol University. It had gone down well, and I was accosted afterwards by one of Mandelson's colleagues and asked if I could make the presentation to Mandelson in London. The next morning,  I caught a train to London on my return to Glasgow. Mandelson's stooge followed me onto the train, sat next to me and said that Mandelson would like me to go to see him. It would mean interrupting my journey back to Glasgow, but I had three young children, and I wanted to see them before bedtime. I suggested that if Mandelson wanted to come to Glasgow, we would be happy to brief him. It struck me at the time that Mandy was someone who took without giving, unlike Barry Manilow's Mandy, who gave without taking.

I watched his career oscillate, soaring and diving as he garnered friends in high places and exploited their friendship to satisfy and inflate his ego, wealth and influence. I cheered every time his reputation plummeted as he was caught breaking the rules and the bonds of friendship. His strong connection with the financial sector was evident when he championed the Private Finance Initiatives for schools, hospitals and the London Underground. His lack of concern for the underprivileged went under the radar; the $75,000 he received from Epstein in 2003, but has no recollection of, was two and a half times the UK average annual wage at the time. Mere loose change as his net worth climbed to £10m.

We now know from the Epstein Files that he attempted to safeguard his financial friends during the banking crisis. He managed to dupe Gordon Brown, but Alistair Darling was less willing to respond to Mandelson's lobbying and taxed the bankers' bonuses. After 2010, when he set up a corporate lobbying company and published his third man memoirs, he was criticised by the Labour Leadership contenders Ed Miliband, David Milliband and Andy Burnham. They got it right, unlike Starmer, who was easy prey for Mandelson, the whisperer to aspiring leaders.

Andrew Mountbatten Windsor was the wild child of the royal family and an unreliable business envoy who befriended a gaggle of unreliable contacts from rogue nations long before he was grounded by Emily Maitlis in his disastrous 2019 interview. His love of golf, uniforms and wealthy donors to maintain his lavish lifestyle, was exploited during his time as the trade and business envoy after leaving the Royal Navy in 2001. 

This involved making contact with UK companies. We were occasionally asked to arrange visits with local companies by his private secretary. Most companies were pleased to welcome Royal visits and would go to great trouble to make preparations that were costly in time and money for the visits. On at least two occasions, he pulled out of these visits, citing other engagements. When we discovered that one of these was to spend the day golfing at St Andrews, using the flights that had been booked for his visits, it told us all we needed to know about his commitment to his role as business envoy. Discussing this with other colleagues, including senior police officers involved in royal duties, confirmed that this was typical behaviour. He was widely regarded as the rotten apple of the royal family. and generated a deep resentment from most people who had any dealings with him. 

Add the incredibly pathetic emails from his former wife, Sarah Ferguson, who was begging for money from Epstein and together the former royals and the former politician have become the celebrity British victims of the Epstein Files. Meanwhile, Trump escapes scrutiny again, partly due to extensive redaction and partly by the hesitancy of the American fourth estate to challenge the peace-loving oligarch.

Labour isn't Working

Eighteen months ago, the UK dismissed the four failed Tory Governments led by 5 Prime Ministers that had overseen no growth, a massive decline in public services, austerity, a disastrous Brexit, and the worst response to Covid in Europe. The loss of world influence and respect, and spiralling immigration, simply added to the reasons to fumigate the lethal legacies of Johnson and Truss. The 2019 intake of Tory MPs had culminated in 24 being suspended or resigning amid corruption charges or failures to observe ministerial codes of practice. 

Keir Starmer was the beneficiary, gaining a massive 174 majority of MPs from only 33.7% of the vote. It was a tepid victory for a Prime Minister who was seen more as a steady hand than an inspiring leader. The subsequent collapse in support of the Labour Party to 20% has stemmed from poor financial management by the Chancellor, too many U-turns and a dictatorial centralising tendency by Number 10. Like many, I thought that Keir Starmer would provide some stability and begin to rebuild the UK's economy and public services. With his legal background, he would also bring justice to all those who had been let down by the previous governments, from the infected blood scandal, the Hillsborough disaster, the Post Office Horizon scandal and the Grenfell Tower fire, as well as restoring our relationship with Europe. 

He has made progress in foreign affairs, but has abandoned many Labour policies, reduced International Aid and made little progress on the cost of living and community care. Projects like the Heathrow expansion and the Oxford to Cambridge rail corridor suggest that there is still a London-centric bias in political decisions, whilst investment in rail modernisation in the north has been further delayed.

It's a Labour of Love to get any London government to support Manchester, even the train fares are designed to add friction to the relationship. There is only a curmudgeonly recognition by Starmer and his acolytes of Andy Burnham’s achievements in Greater Manchester.  Keir Starmer has plummeted down the popularity charts, aided by the rapacious right-wing press, social media and his own inability to inspire the electorate. His premiership is on a shoogly nail, and the prospect of the effervescent Andy Burnham returning to Parliament could not be entertained.

The vacancy created by Andrew Gwynn, the MP for Gorton and Denton, resigning, should have created the opportunity for the local constituency Labour Party to select who they thought would have the best chance of retaining a seat. It had a majority of 13,000, but is under serious threat from the resurgent Greens and Reform, led by Nigel Farage and his plague of failed Tory MPs. Not so, the Labour Party showed once again that it is a centralising body. Its National Executive, including Keir Starmer, voted to prevent the Mayor of Greater Manchester from standing on the dubious grounds that it would cost too much to have an election for the Greater Manchester Mayor.  Since when has the cost of elections been a reason to ditch local democracy? Starmer's eyes narrowed as he tried to explain the reasons for the decision. He fooled no one; this was a blatant attack on a possible future rival.

The mendacity within the Labour Party had reached breaking point; London had stamped on Manchester's right to choose. Later in the day, there was some nemesis as Keir Starmer's beloved Arsenal were put to the sword by Manchester United. It was the first time I had cheered Manchester United since they won the European Cup in 1968. Starmer has rolled his last dice.

Budget Shenanigans

The Chancellor, Rachel Reeves's November budget, has been mired in controversy.  She had made the mistake in the previous year of being unwilling to streamline and simplify our clunky and not very progressive tax regime, which enabled tax evasion and lucrative business for tax accountants. Her pledge before the election to not increase income tax, national insurance, and VAT was naive and will probably turn out to be a harbinger of her downfall. These represent 75% of the total tax intake of the country, and by refusing to increase, or just as importantly, reform any of them, she had effectively made it impossible to deliver on some of the improvements to public services. The benefits for children and support for fuel payments for the elderly and disabled were perceived as givens by the new Labour Government. 

The consequence was that there had to be several U-turns made in order to deal with cost-of-living issues. Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, had backed her in all of these changes. The popularity of both Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves, already low, had plummeted to the lowest ever. They were intertwined as the architects of what was now perceived as a failing Labour government. The Conservatives had made no impression following the last election; they had been effectively dismissed by the electorate as having failed over 14 years and having no right to be forgiven any time soon. The consequence has been that the Reform Party under Nigel Farage has become the most popular party, gaining 30% of the vote in numerous opinion polls. Farage, despite widespread corruption and resignations within his party and shocking rumours about his racism and bullying of his peers at school, was nevertheless being bigged up by the media as the next Prime Minister.

In her first budget, Rachel Reeves had followed her instincts and the advice on the tax changes that were needed. She seemed to be a prisoner of the Treasury, which was reluctant to address some of the fundamental issues about the taxation system within the UK. This was not likely to change despite powerful arguments from the IFS and Resolution Foundation for a more root-and-branch recalibration of the tax system. 

When Torrsten Bell, the former director of the Resolution Foundation, became a minister within the government with responsibility for pensions and an advisor to the chancellor, I had some hope that Reeves would adopt a more progressive and holistic approach to taxation. Bell had detailed knowledge of the benefit system and had clear ideas for a fundamental re-shaping of the UK taxation system. It would take the form of moving towards an integration of income tax, national insurance and capital gains tax with a simplification of VAT. Together, they would reduce the scope for tax evasion and significantly minimise the bureaucracy for businesses. These radical changes, along with proposals for tackling the housing crisis, were set out in his book, Great Britain. How We Get Our Future Back.

It was a surprise when, in the early autumn, Rachel Reeves gave several speeches which suggested that she may be thinking of abandoning her pledge not to raise taxes and to combine income tax with national insurance as a means of safeguarding working people. It would draw in additional funding from those not paying national insurance: the retired and those living on their assets under the present system. These proposals were widely debated, but following considerable opposition from the Labour Party and an OBR-estimated increase in the tax take, they were eventually dropped in her budget on the 26th of November. Instead, we had what has been called a smorgasbord of smaller tax increases for gambling, large houses, and various other devices that brought in sufficient funding to increase the headroom and to tackle some of the pledges that the Labour Party had made in the manifesto. It played to the Labour MPs and to the bond markets, who had been anxious for Reeves to keep to the treasury rules and increase the headroom.

Her performance at the budget was about as good as it would get; her turgid presentations are not particularly inspiring. She was proficient but unlikely to win many accolades. She was absolutely crucified by the response from Kemi Badenoch, leader of the conservative opposition, who made very few comments on the technicalities of the budget but focused instead on a personal assassination of the chancellor. It was carried out with a brutal and cruel flourish that confirmed that Badenoch is totally unsuitable to be in any position of power.

The response from the markets was generally positive, and any worries about the bond markets dipping were unfounded; even the pound rallied.  There was also widespread support from many of the groups, who had been upset by the first budget, which had done little to support children in poverty and disabled people. There were also some new measures, such as introducing a mileage rate for electric cars, reducing the cost of energy, and providing income for families with over two children, which were well-received.

The next morning, we had the usual criticism from the right-wing press reflecting some of the heinous comments that have been made by Kemi Badenoch. There was also a bullying interview with the Chancellor by Nick Robinson on the BBC Today programme. He went out of his way to be extremely harsh on the chancellor. She kept her cool during this exchange, and later in the programme, David Blunkett gave a balanced justification of the budget, acknowledging that it could have been more radical, but providing the sort of gravitas that is sadly missing in much of the political debate today.

The presumption by the media in its avalanche of articles, podcasts and programmes is that Starmer and Reeves are on their last warning. I am not sure. I do not believe that Reeves has either the grasp or the imagination to provide the radical reshaping of taxation that is needed. Starmer has given her a lot of trust and support, but has shown in the past that he can be decisive when he sees the writing on the wall. With Darren Jones as Chief Secretary to the PM and Torsten Bell in the Treasury team, he is getting alternative advice and may well decide to jettison Reeves to safeguard his own position, which has been bolstered by his relationship on the world stage and with EU leaders in particular.

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.

Time to reset the United Nations

When we hear the Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, say he is horrified about what is happening in Gaza, we realise that the UK is a busted flush. He has been uttering similar sentiments for quite a while, but he has not even had the temerity to stop the sale of weapons to Israel or to call out the Israeli Government for genocide. Unlike the former Supreme Court Judge, Lord Sumption, who made a methodical justification of Genocide in Gaza or the International Association of Genocide Scholars, who state that the death of 65,000 people during the 22-month-long war meets the legal definition laid out in the UN Convention on genocide. This follows similar statements by two Israeli human rights organisations.

Meanwhile, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which has 15,000 staff in Palestine, has been prevented from providing humanitarian aid to Gaza, including medicines, since the second of March 2025. The Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Gutierrez, has made it clear that Israel is acting beyond its powers and that this is the first occasion that any country has suspended operations of the United Nations organisations. This raises the wider question about how the United Nations is able to make decisions and how it is perceived in the world in 2025. Things have changed dramatically since the arrival of Donald Trump as the President for his second term. He clearly has no time for the United Nations and has made it evident that he is the supreme power in determining what action should be taken in the world's trouble spots. 

This is made possible by the constitution of the United Nations, which established a Supreme Council with the United States, Russia, Great Britain, France and China as the permanent members.. They have veto rights to prevent UN actions. This may have been appropriate at the end of the Second World War when the United Nations was formed, but with 193 countries signed up to the United Nations charter (see below) and the growth of member nations over the years, the question has to be asked: why do these five countries have the ability to prevent actions from being taken? This has been to Israel's benefit, which is a member of the United Nations and receives unbridled support from the United States. Unlike Palestine, which has been refused entry, its delegates are allowed only as observers. The United States is now refusing to let them enter the country, which is the administrative HQ of the UN. 

This is the second occasion that the United States has scuppered a worldwide peacekeeping organisation. Previously, it was largely responsible for the demise of the League of Nations, which was established in 1919 by the Treaty of Versailles following the First World War. Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States, was a key player in its formation but failed to gain ratification from the Republicans in the Senate. The thirty-two nations that joined the League of Nations, which was headquartered in Geneva, depended on member states to provide peacekeeping forces. These were difficult to mobilise without the resources of the United States,. Great Britain and France, the other leading nations in it’s creation were struggling to recover from the Great War. As a result, the League of Nations was unable to prevent the violation of its rules by fascist regimes in Japan and Italy, which invaded Manchuria and Ethiopia, respectively. Hitler's Germany invaded over twenty countries, and the  USSR invaded Finland.  The major powers did not have the inclination to challenge these violations and instead began to rearm as the  Second World War became inevitable.

It would appear that President Trump has no desire for the United States to facilitate action by the United Nations and has used its veto with increasing impunity. It has withdrawn from the World Health Organisation, the UN Human Rights Council, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and reduced foreign aid to UN agencies on the assertion that they are not in the United States' national interest.

Equally, Russia and China have used their veto to prevent UN interventions in countries that could be considered their satellites. Great Britain and France are there for their historical reasons, and until recently have tended to support the United States' lead. The United Nations has not reviewed its charter since 1973, since when the world has changed dramatically. There are currently 61 active conflicts, the most since 1946 and over 60,000 peacekeepers are deployed from 115 member states. In light of current conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine and the withdrawal of involvement by the United States, several questions must be asked:

• Why is the United Nations still located in the United States, a country that is shameless in protecting its own self interest ? 
• Should it not be located in a more neutral and stable country, which is less concerned about its own power and more concerned about securing peace across the world? 
• Why should five countries have a veto? 
• Should it not be for the Security Council, currently 15 countries, to pass motions with a two-thirds majority?
• Should the composition of the Security Council be expanded to ten permanent members, with the additional 5 representations coming from South America, Africa, the Middle East, Asia and Oceania? Together with ten rotating members, this would create a Security Council of 20 members, none with a veto.
• Is there any reason to exclude Palestine from membership?

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonising the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

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 - vanquished tropes

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 are spending too much time on other projects. Amol seems to have first dibs on any new BBC programme, and he and Nick have a weekly Today Podcast, which is usually good, but won't last; they are both too fond of their own voices. It does not please Justin Webb. He seems aggrieved that it trespasses 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.