Why the 1976 IMF crisis is not really relevant

We live in febrile times with talk of civil war and the Government imploding.  I saw the other day that three quarters of Labour MPs would lose their seats if there was a general election tomorrow.   However, there isn't going to be a general election tomorrow or even next month which is a problem with a lot of contemporary commentary.

The mainstream media says that it is boosting Reform because it is 'making the political weather', but there is an interesting cause and effect relationship here: the media largely ignores the Lib Dems (70+ MPs), the Greens (as many MPs as Reform and more councillors) and Plaid Cymru (the equivalent number of MPs).

However, right-wing commentators believe that somehow the Government is going to implode and Labour MPs will vote like turkeys for an early Christmas.

The most popular scenario is that the Government will be brought down by a fiscal crisis.  Government borrowing costs are rising, but that is happening in a number of countries, not least France which faces a real government and governing crisis.   Trump's attack on the idea of an independent central bank certainly does not help.

Commentators are raising the spectre of the 1976 IMF intervention, but this is problematic on two fronts.  First, subsequent archival research has shown that the economy was not in as a bad a state as was claimed at the time and what one had (to simplify) is the Treasury pushing its agenda.   I refer you to   Chris Rogers,‘The Politics of Economic Policy Making in Britain: A Re-assessment of the 1976 IMF Crisis’ Politics & Policy, 37(5), 971-994.

I should disclose that I was supervisor of Chris's PhD along with Pete Burnham.

The second consideration is that, as an eminent American economist discussed on Radio 4 this morning, dollar reserves were then more important to us: indeed, they were more important to everyone.  The dollar looks quite likely to decline as an international reserve currency, in part as a consequence of current US economic policy.

I certainly do not rule out a Reform government after the next election, although much could change including a Conservative revival under generic leadership.   However, the example of Warwickshire shows that the Conservatives seem happy to be supine when dealing with Reform.

19-year old leader says Tories and Lib Dems are toast

The 19-year old leader of Warwickshire County Council strode confidently on to the steps of Shire Hall this week and predicted that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were finished.

This seemed a slightly odd claim given that he had been elected leader in a 23-23 tied vote against a Liberal Democrat, the Reform chair of the council using his casting vote.

My confidence in his ability to lead the cash strapped council was not enhanced when he proposed spending £190k on special political assistants to come up with new ideas.   He said that council officials has not responded to a challenge to come up with fresh ideas, but their job is to implement the plans of the political leadership.   Evidently these do not exist.

In addition local councils are effectively agents for implementing existing legislation and government policies.  Thus, county councils may assess individual SEND cases differently, but they have to have an effective SEND policy - which costs a large part of their budget along with adult social care.

Leaving aside the fact that a general election is three or four years away (despite the predictions from the Goodwin Sands that Labour will somehow spontaneously combust), the Lib Dems seem to be holding their own in local by-elections while the record of Reform is patchy, losing some seats they have had to defend.

As for the Conservatives, their still have a brand.   At some point they will decide that Kemi Kaze is not the answer and will opt either to appeal to Reform voters and appoint Generic (who knows how to do a Tik Tok stunt) or decide to be a One Nation party again and elect James Not So Cleverley (whose appeal is that he is sold rather than clever).

Or they get Penny Mordaunt back and she could point both ways.   In any event they are not finished.

BTW, I have one thing in common with Councilllor Finch.   Anyone who can work out what it is will win a small prize (yet to be determined).

Why does the BBC platform Farage?

This has been puzzling me and others for some time.  It's counter intuitive: Reform in office would defund the BBC regardless of how much of a boost they try to give them now.

A focus group report noted that one comment was that the Lib Dems were 'invisible'.   No wonder: they have over 70 seats in the Commons, but get very little air time.   The Greens have as many MPs as Reform and more councillors but might as well not exist.

One BBC answer is that Reform are ahead in the polls.   I don't recall that being the criterion for coverage in the past.  If Reform fall back, will coverage also reduce?   I doubt it.

Another is that they are a news story.   Last night the BBC's news values were that the death of an American wrestler was more important than a major trade deal with India.    It will be interesting to see what sort of coverage the new 'Fruit and Nut' party (as yet unnamed) gets.

BBC commentators will no doubt claim that it is their job to hold the Government to account.  It's a shame they didn't  pursue some of the scandals under the Conservatives as vigorously.

Part of the answer is that many of the high ups at the BBC, not least hapless supremo Tim Davie. were Tory appointees.   Commentators like the 'weasel' Chris Mason and Tory Laura come across as closet Tories or at least they miss the tip offs they got under the Tories (add the rat Peston on ITV to that crew). Laura's attempts to score 'gothchas' are a pathetic substitute for television journalism.    Davie has even floated changing programme content to align it with the values of Reform voters.

Impartial broadcasting?   Sadly no.   When I did TV work (starting at age 13) I preferred Sky to the BBC because the latter was so obsessed with 'balance' that it killed the story.   Perhaps it was a necessary price.

Good old London town

It's open season on London from right-wing commentators writing from exile in Dubai or filling the pages of the Spectator.   Even The Economist had an editorial on 'The price of public decay' which starts by talking about London.

Robert Jenrick staged his YouTube stunt at Stratford underground station, drawing attention to the number of young (mostly) men evading their fares.

The blame for all this is placed at the door of the mayor Sadiq Kahn whose religious affiliation is well known and presumably should be down the underground challenging fare evaders or cleaning graffiti on the Bakerloo Line.

I travelled across London twice last week and encountered no problems at all, just seeing the vibrant, cosmopolitan city I have always known.  When I was growing up in the 1950s black and brown faces were far from unknown.   Some were students, but my mother's best friends recruited Jamaican immigrants for their small factory and they stayed with them all their working lives.

My youngest (admittedly no spring chicken) tells me she is spending the weekend in the capital and is looking forward to the shows, the parks, the musuems and the river (which used to smell terribly in the summer in the 1950s).

Of course, the epidemic of smart phone thefts is a problem, but London is not the only city to suffer from global organised crime.  Don't be put off enjoying what this world city has to offer.

Letters to a great-granddaughter (7)

In May my great-granddaughter came from Spain to England for my wedding.  The concept of a great-grandfather was difficult for her to grasp, but she was soon calling me 'grandad'.

In this post I have tried to summarise the various forces that threaten her future.   At my stage of life it is very easy to take a 'glass half empty' stance and I should emphasise that there are many positive opportunities ahead, not least in her adopted home.

I have not discussed the challenges in any particular order, but it is clearly that AI is one of the most potentially transformative.  The analogue world I knew has largely disappeared and the digital world is here.   

There has been a certain amount of negative hyperbole about AI with visions of humanoid robots more intelligent than us roaming the Earth.  Scare stories about a decline in entry level jobs due to AI were effectively knocked on the head by David Smith writing in The Times.   However, we may be nearer the 15 hour week envisaged a century or so ago by J M Keynes and that is going to require some disruptive changes in the economy and society.   There will also be many benefits in areas such as health care.

The strength of organised crime relative to the state is an area of concern.   In Haiti the gangs seem to be taking control; in Mexico it is a continuing battle; and it is a growing problem in France.   If your phone is stolen in London it is likely to enter a chain that will see it rapidly exported  by criminals, the same goes for high performance cars. In Spain corruption appears to be widespread.  The role of organised crime in illegal migration is there for all to see.   The state is increasingly seen as unable to protect its own citizens.

I have great respect for William Hague (I greatly enjoyed being shown round his beautiful garden in Wales by him while his wife took me round their superb library).  He recently stated that nuclear proliferation was the greatest threat we face.

How near Iran was to developing a useable nuclear device and how far any efforts in that direction have been disrupted is way above my pay grade.   However, if Iran got nuclear weapons (leaving aside the reaction of Israel) Saudi Arabia and Turkey and probably the Gulf States would want them as well.  As tensions between Tirrkey and Israel increase, Turkey may decide that it needs that capability anyway.

All the scientific evidence on climate change is tossed aside by know nothings and as a consequence we are not taking the measures we need to take quickly enough.   As a result we may have to focus on adaptation, butt that is going to be expensive.

Unfortunately, our political responses to these challenges are becoming less sophisticated.   One can understand the despair of young people struggling with the cost of living and seeing public services deteriorate.   Belief in the big money tree seems to persist and nostrums like a wealth tax are advanced despite the fact that they have not worked wherever they have been tried.

Populism on the right and to an extent on the left (the proposed Fruit and Nut Party) is flourishing, although there have been one or two setbacks as in Australia and Canada.  Frustrated voters are attracted to 'none of the above' alternatives and simple solutions to complex problems.

I still believe in the need for evidence, expertise and effective policies.   In a society that is increasingly fragmented we need proportional representation, ideally STV, but constitutional tinkering will not be  enough.

But as Shakespeare said, our doubts are traitors.   We have to believe that better times are possible, however tough the road ahead.

The bureaucratic maze of the Economic Crime Act

If there is one generalisation I would extract from the political science literature, it is that it is no good passing legislation without considering issues of implementation and enforcement.   How much will the legislation cost to put into effect?   Will it impose time and money costs on actors outside government?

It is very tempting to act as a legislative factory: I well remember sitting in on the last few days of a California state legislature cycle and seeing a blizzard of bills passed, some of them contradictory and others devoid of any real content.   The EU is sometimes at risk of being a legislative factory, particularly as it is largely reliant on member states to implement and their willingness and capacity to do so varies considerably (even before we begin to consider the issue of corruption).

I do not think that company directors and even shareholders have taken fulyl on board the implications of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.  Indeed, two company directors of a property management company I spoke to had never heard of it.

Let me try and briefly describe my 'journey' with this legislation.   I am the (unpaid) director of a niche publishing company.   Fortunately we have an on the ball company secretary who alerted us to this legislation.

Essentially it is intended to combat the use of corporate arrangements in the UK for illicit and illegal purposes.

I then tried to comply online and was unsuccessful despite providing my passport number, home address etc.. So much for Tony Blair's assertion that everything can be digitised.  In the meantime our company secretary had contacted Companies House (the enforcement body).  It took about an hour to speak to a human and it is evident that they were overwhelmed.

I was advised to go to Warwick Post Office with a print out sent to me online and my passport.  Having managed to find a parking place in Warwick, I was told that the QR code had not printed successfully. A fellow director was told in London that there was a fault with the chip on her passport.

With a deadline looming, I decided to have a second attempt at Warwick Post Office, this time using the bus.  Driver S Gonzalez gave me a whirlwind tour of the extensive Warwick suburbs and industrial estates.

Once again my QR code was rejected, but a kind lady took pity on me, used my passport to generate a new code and then took my photograph.  I was verified as a bona fide UK citizen!

Much to my surprise I then got a letter from a heritage railway company in which I have shares.  They stated that they were now required to keep a full record of all their (many) shareholders.   Fortunately they provided a disclosure form I could scan and send back, but they did warn me that failure to provide the required information 'was a criminal offence'.

I am quite busy so the time spent on this was an unintended consequence of the legislation and many of those affected have clearly not heard about it.

I should caution that I am not a lawyer and you may need to seek legal advice if you are affected by this legislation.  

The magic money tree is back

One of the unfortunate consequences of the restoration of winter fuel payments is that voters' faith in the magic money tree has been restored.   Shake it hard enough and it will deliver!

Pensioners, of course, are much more likely to vote and those over 55 voting exceeded those under 55 at the last general election.    

The Government has suffered political pain for little fiscal gain.  Ironically, although I will be (rightly) taxed on the payment I receive, my partner will receive it tax free.

The policy change encouraged more pensioners to apply for pension credit which is a good if unintended outcome but it reduces the fiscal benefits even further.

Why did the Government do it?   I think they were genuinely spooked by the state they found the public finances in and thought this would be a current financial year win.

It also means that no one is likely to challenge the triple lock although it has delivered pensions £800 higher than they would otherwise be because of the earnings link.

Its defenders will say that state pensions are lower in the UK than elsewhere in Europe, but private pensions are higher.   Not everyone has them, but that is why we have pension credit.

This policy change will encourage backbench Labour MPs to demand retreats on benefit payments and qualifications which means that it will be difficult to avoid tax rises in the autumn.