Manifesto
PETE’S MANIFESTO
- ‘Let’s just fix things and build on that’
- A five-year path to a fairer society that actually functions, providing a platform for future growth whilst recognising changing demographics.
- If we want effective, quality services we need to be prepared to pay for them through a mix of tax and growth.
The Headlines
Constitution :
House of Lords reforms.
House of Commons to adopt Proportional Representation using the Additional Member System. Reforms to rules on lobbying, party funding, behaviours, hours and layout.
Devolved nations. Win over opinion in Scotland and Wales by relocation of some major Government departments, appropriate targeted investment and appointments, and inclusive approach to decision making. Recognise the inevitable in Northern Ireland and start to prepare for a negotiated exit by 2050.
Life Cycle:
No changes to maternity/paternity or child allowance arrangements
Pre-school - up to 30 hours a week support from age 10 months combined with a large investment in nursery schools and staff training. Commence acquiring/building state nurseries to offer a state option. £4 billion a year to operate and £1billion a year capital investment.
School - pull up standards and facilities towards agreed high standards and then maintain. Clear pathways within a comprehensive system for academic, scientific and practical abilities. Private option available without business rate/charity exemptions.
£11 billion a year, a 10% increase.
Further Education - cap on student loans at the existing levels. Standards and grading review. Realign universities into the academic/scientific for higher ability/intellectual students and the more practical, technical, artistic for middle ability students enabling the institutions to play to their strengths rather than try to operate as diluted offer-everything bodies.
Post 16 - Massive 15% boost (£2 billion) to the apprenticeship and trainee system to train the children for the jobs we need now and in the future
NEETS - 300,000 16-18 year olds are currently in a hole. Create both a Community Army and Military Foundation as options for a form of National Service for 18 months to provide structure, training and self-worth. (£1 billion).
Helping Hand:
Welfare - Child Allowance, Universal Credit, Job Seekers Allowance, Disability and Ill-Health, SSP remain at existing index-linked levels. Post SSP Employment Support Allowances to be subject to more frequent and appropriate assessments and, in conjunction with NHS improvements should reduce significantly.
Special Needs and Carer Allowances remain at existing levels but introduce a triple-lock.
Housing Allowance - link to regional rents but will only be solved by a massive social housing build programme.
Housing - Build two million houses in five years with a further five million over the next seven years, half to be affordable. £5 billion a year.
Social Care - up to pension age. Restore support services back to 2010 levels and maintain. £8 billion.
Social Care - old folks. Maintain the state pension triple-lock. Move all public-sector onto a career-average pension. Any care requirement to have a basic cover at home or in a residential place funded by a ‘social-care insurance policy’ with premiums paid during working life.
Supposing I fall ill?
NHS funding - restore to 2010 levels and maintain.
Staff - recruit, train and retain the necessary numbers by a mix of pay and policies that puts sensible controls on private work, early departures and so on.
Services - Bring associated services like dentists and GP’s back under the NHS umbrella.
Demand reduction - a massive, sustained and coordinated programme to tackle poor health at source. Sport, exercise, diet, annual health checks, legislation on food giants etc etc.
Facilities - invest in the necessary facilities and then maintain.
It’s a big figure. £40 billion a year, a 20% increase to get us back on track.
This all needs the economy to grow!
Ever heard of Keynes? The Marshall Plan? Proven solutions.
Let’s take out a 25 year mortgage for £100 billion (£20b a year for the next 5 years) at 4%. Grow the economy by just an extra 0.2 % and it’s already starting to pay back.
Infrastructure investment - a strategic, coordinated approach to providing the necessary communication and energy framework for the future. A win-win as the funded economic activity gives an immediate tax return offset and the pay back comes from the future economic growth nurtured and encouraged by the infrastructure opportunities.
Get serious about levelling-up to tap into the potential of everywhere outside the South-East. Remember the Germans are spending 5% of their income on levelling up the old East.
Whilst we are on the infrastructure.
Re-nationalise the railways. Tighten the bus franchise service agreements. Rapidly expand cycling and pedestrian segregated routes.
Re-nationalise the water industry, the buy back at asset-value only as the ‘lost profit’ argument doesn’t wash due to all the excessive dividends and lack of investment by the private companies. Create English Water; a not-for-profit organisation to run things and invest in the necessary facilities.
Create a British Energy company; a not-for-profit body to steadily take over the generation and transmission of electricity. Drive on with solar and wind and supplement with three new large nuclear plants. Compulsory solar panels on new home builds and public buildings. Get ahead with the necessary transmission infrastructure.
Housing, hospitals, schools, community facilities, etc investment - same story for the economic activity tax return offsets. Plus a safe, healthy, happier, educated population provides a capable workforce and reduced welfare expenditure.
A green and pleasant land:
A complete overhaul of emissions, land-use, water-use, waste and pollution legislation. Regulatory bodies to be given effective enforcement powers with real-deterrent level penalties.
Clean air zones, clean water zones, pesticide/fertilser/farm waste controls, re-wilding incentives, right-to-roam and right-to-navigate to follow the Scottish and National Trust models. Forestry/natural woodland balance. You get the picture..
Tighten the single-use plastic and packaging legislation.
Work with the agro-chemical, petro-chemical and big pharma rather than allowing them to dictate the direction we have to follow.
Defence, Law and Order:
We can’t be everywhere; we’re not a global policeman, we have to work with NATO in most circumstances or align with Commonwealth forces for Commonwealth matters.
Maintain existing strength. Phase out Trident and our nuclear deterrent BUT replace with equivalent huge investment in a ‘cyber deterrent’ that offers the same ability to paralyse an enemy nation but without turning the globe into a nuclear wasteland.
Transform the police; numbers, behaviours, performance and standards to win the confidence of all sectors of society.
Invest in the judicial process to bring efficiency and much shorter timelines to the courts. Make legal aid worthwhile to the lawyers and affordable to everyone.
Invest in the prison and probation services to match the numbers, ensuring appropriate-to-the- crime facilities and a supported re-education pathway for those where the chance of reform exists.
Beyond our shores. What’s our Foreign Policy?
Firstly accept that we’re no longer a big hitter so focus on being a shining example for good practices, right behaviours and high integrity.
A crisis - if its disaster then we should help wherever deploying the Forces if necessary.
If it’s a conflict we must work with the UN and NATO rather than going alone or as a USA lap dog.
Relationships and Partnerships. Build the key economic, cultural, and political ones.
Get back as close as possible to the EU, short of rejoining in the next decade.
Stand firm diplomatically and economically against despots and dictators, and aim to influence other nations with divergent political systems and/or human right attitudes.
Immigration - we’re going to need people to do the jobs our ageing and changing population either can’t or won’t do and to contribute financially to the tax revenues. Stop vilifying migrants and sell the positives. Speed up he process, allow asylum seekers to work after initial checks. Actually identify the numbers required, sell the message anoint forecasts for housing, hospitals, eduction etc future national requirements.
Other topics:
Middle-East - ? China - ?
Falklands, Gibraltar and other dependencies - give them back in 100 years time.
What’s it all going to cost?
An increase in expenditure of £120 billion funded in the first 4 years by tax rises of £96 billion and borrowing of £24 billion.
See later for Financial Details.
The Details
1. The constitution, parliament and devolution
2. Childhood - pre-school to 18+
3. A helping hand - the Welfare State
4. What if I fall ill? - Health and social care
5. Environment
6. Defence, Law and Order.
7. Finances
1. First things first: how we are governed.
Let’s improve the structure and arrangements that control how we are governed into something more democratic and effective. This means bringing both our electoral system and the Houses of Parliament into the 21st century.
What does this mean?
- House of Lords reform.
An end to political appointments combined with a further phase out of hereditary peers and a mix up of the ‘Lords Spiritual’ that replaces half the entitled Bishops by other faith leaders.
People appointed to ‘cross bench’ status by the Appointments Committee based on ability, public service, experience etc with a mandate to ensure nationwide representation of ethnicity, gender, religion, politics etc etc.
HOLAC members to be selected by select committee of 7 MPs with no party having more than 3 members).
Lords and Dames commit to x number of days and committee work and loose HOL voting rights if they fall short.
- House of Commons reform driven by the introduction of PR.
We can’t continue with our first past the post system (in Europe there’s only Belarus, that shining example of democracy, that also has FPTP). It effectively disenfranchises a large proportion of the population, those living in safe seats, and often leads to tactical voting rather than an expression of real preferences. There’s stacks of persuasive articles on the benefits of proportional representation compared to FPTP.
Replace FPTP with the Additional Member System which is used in places like New Zealand, Germany and more recently Scotland. It requires only two ballot papers and two ‘X’s and should result in a more democratic Parliament and where the largest party will need to seek some form and level of cross-party support for their initiatives in government.
Step one is to reduce the number of constituencies to 400 and in addition create 50 new ‘regions’ which are a combination of several local constituencies. So Bristol might change from having four constituencies to having three constituencies ( Centre, North and South) and be being a part of a Wider Bristol Region. (Similar to West of England Combined Authority which would be replaced). These 50 regions will be represented by five MPs.
Then at an election voters will vote on the first ballot paper from the list of candidates who want to be the Member of Parliament for the constituency. This first vote will therefore allocate the first 400 seats.On the second ballot paper is a list of parties who want seats in parliament and each party will publish a list of candidates in advance. A vote for a party is a vote to try and make more of their list of candidates into MPs. These remaining 250 MPs, called ‘List MPs’, are elected by the AMS system ( look up the ‘highest quotient’ or Jefferson method to see how the mechanics work), which makes the overall results more proportional, countering any distortions in the constituency results. Five ‘List MPs' are elected from each of 50 new districts, of which the constituencies are sub-divisions.
- Other House of Commons reforms
Much tighter controls on party funding and electoral campaign spending. We’re nowhere near as bad as the USA but need to counter the opportunity for influence by the characters with big chequebooks.
The lobby voting system -Every bill and every amendment that the speaker has assessed requires a vote will result in up to 650 people filing out the commons chamber, being summoned from committee rooms, tea room and bars and herded through the narrow corridors into one or other of the lobbies. A busy legislative day can repeat this process half a dozen times, each time taking around half-an-hour by the time the result is announced. It’s great tradition but it’s not effective when hours could be saved by a simple push of a button on their phone; what other business would operate in such an out-dated manner?
If we’re as serious as we should be to make the Commons an effective, modernised and appropriate work place, providing a healthy work-life balance for its workers, then it needs to make better use of its time and reduce the opportunity for harassment and intimidation.
I’d maintain and acknowledge the tradition by using the lobby system for the first vote of each parliamentary week, and maybe the symbolic votes (Kings Speech, Budget, No Confidence etc) but thereafter use an electronic system.
The Layout - Squeezed in on unergonomic seating, the best places often allocated by favour or who’d been able to get in early to bag a spot by placing their prayer card, and only a few metres away from a mirror image of political foes on the opposition benches. It’s a sure-fire recipe for confrontation and whilst it’s guaranteed brilliant theatre, its not healthy, leads to entrenched positions, reduces the chance of sensible co-operation and gives advantage to the more skilled or loudest debater. And with the chance to speak somewhat dependent on catching the Speakers eye by bobbing up and down it’s not exactly a guarantee for an equal hearing.
So.. we need a new debating chamber. Just look at the set up in Holyrood, Berlin, Brussels, Strasbourg or Wellington to see what we are missing. PMQ’s would be just as effective at holding the PM and government to account . In fact it would probably be more so as political cut and thrust wouldn’t be fuelled by in quite the same way by the crowded environment of waving order papers and shouting MPs. However, just like with the lobby voting system, we can’t forget our roots and completely throw away the pomp, history, and traditions of the House of Commons. Again just use the old Chamber for the opening debate and the regular, symbolic events of the Parliamentary cycle. It can become a working museum, used with the appropriate pomp and ceremony on certain days and at other times used for educational and historical enlightenment for visitors and citizens.
The hours - do we want debates and voting going late into the night? Hardly conducive to a good work-life balance and sound decisions made on considered debate rather than an MPs stamina or desire to get home early. So put a structured timetable in place that sensibly allocates time for debates, cabinet, committee and constituency, visitors and travel. Only finish after 7pm in exceptional circumstances.
Do away with prayers at the start of each parliamentary day.
Drinking on the job? - No thanks. No alcohol to be served in the bars and restaurant until after 6pm. We don’t want judgements impaired, or the risk of debates becoming more raucous.
Expenses and other benefits- you’d think it was obvious that the rules should be clear and require a sign-off approval just like in any big organisation. So let’s just put in a digital system that’s easy to track and administer and will rapidly spot anomalies like duck ponds, gardening or DIY costs or erroneous or ridiculous taxi or plane journeys.
Behaviours- bullying, harassment, dodgy expenses, failure to declare interests and so on need to be treated in the same manner as in other organisations with sensible standards and effective enforcement. Parliament is not a private members club. The Standards Committee has the power and must be given the respect.
- What about the devolved nations and the state of the Union?
There are all sorts of arguments on this subject. Considering the whole mix of historical, geographic, economic, social, and emotional factors (Appendix 1) the conclusions can be summarised as follows:
There is no strong case for continuing to include Northern Ireland so announce a long term goal of handover to Ireland allowing a generation for the populations and political parties to get their heads around it. A referendum in 2045 and, assuming the majority are in favour, full exit from 2050.
Use the next 25 years to sow the seeds, sweeten the pill for the Irish, and allow any doubters to relocate to the rest of the UK if they really can’t stomach the prospect.
For Wales and Scotland we have win over the majority of those who contemplate the possibility of independence by making them feel wanted and involved rather than isolated and neglected.
So start by moving some appropriate ministries out of Whitehall; how about environment, transport and education to Scotland and health and agriculture to Wales and trade and industry to Birmingham.Ensure some Scottish and Welsh ministers are in key cabinet roles and use the regions more for the centres for arts. museums and other cultural bodies. In addition allow some parliamentary processes to take place in the regions; have some of the Supreme Court sittings, sub-committee meetings and even some debates take place outside of Westminster. The venues and technology exist so it’s more of a ‘having the will’ as any extra costs should be compensated by increased democratic good will.
Ease the taxation and funding constraints for the devolved governments and level up the share on large scale investments.
If none of these measures make a positive benefit to reducing the independence clamour then offer a ‘once a generation’ referendum in 2035 to truly gauge the mood.
Now let’s fix the country
Okay, so having hopefully sorted out some of the governance issues around Westminster and made some positive decisions around the future of the Union it’s time to get stuck into some of the glaring problems that are either clearly unfair, or just not working as they should be. One thing is clear everywhere you look, and without dwelling on how we’ve fallen down various holes, there’s no doubt that most public assets, institutions and services have been neglected or allowed to be milked by those with an eye on a fast buck. It’s also blindingly obvious that it’s going to take a lot of money and a determined leadership with a long-term vision to get us back on track. How this will need to be funded is covered later.
Where to start?
Didn’t somebody once say that all we want from life is a safe place with a roof over our heads, somewhere we can find work and raise a family knowing that the state will step in to provide a helping hand when we can’t provide for ourselves; if we’re sick or frail, if a job isn’t available, or when we might be threatened. Sounds simple; a pact between citizen and State that involves paying taxes, sensible spending and investment, and a realisation that the next generation will need to be adequately nurtured and trained to be capable of perpetuating the deal into the future.
Let’s take a ‘journey through life’ and identify what’s working, what’s morally right or wrong, and what needs to change.
Again these are headline policy statements; the details and deeper arguments can be found on Government or Office for National Statistics websites, newspaper articles, numerous journals. Particularly useful are the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, New Statesman, and wikipedia.
2. So what can babies born in 2023 expect from life?
Maternity and Paternity
Well firstly their parent(s) will have benefited from fairly decent maternity and paternity support throughout the pregnancy and the first nine months of life. Not the most generous in Europe but more than adequate for most and arrangements that don’t usually place excessive strain on employers who pay for most of it. So no changes required until the time comes for parents and state to think about needing to get one, or both, back to work.
This means that once the maternity and paternity support runs out there needs to be adequate childcare provision.
Childcare
The first point to make is that there’s a basic child allowance support package already in place.
So long as neither partner earns more than £60,000 there’s £24 a week for the first child and £16 for each subsequent one. That’s £2000 a year for a two-child family; not a massive sum but enough to significantly help with a basic healthy diet and some essential clothing.
So no changes to child allowance, just index link the upper threshold.
Nursery Crimes - the case for pre-school child care support.
The potential problems arise when the maternity pay period run out, usually a month or two before the child’s first birthday. Childcare is seriously expensive and it’s almost entirely in the hands of the private sector. Just to cover a 25 hour part-time week will cost an average of £130 a week for a child-minder, £150 for a nursery slot and £250 for a nanny. You can broadly double the figures if you need 50 hours cover.
The UK child costs are double those faced by French parents and four time more than in Germany and six times more than Sweden. It’s currently probably cheaper to emigrate for their pre-school years.
But wait a moment….the Government has just nicked my idea, finally recognised the problem and have committed to investing roughly along the lines I’d have been advocating. Over the next two years the pre-school budget will double from £4b to £8b.
By September 2025, working parents will be able to claim 30 hours of free childcare a week, over 38 weeks of the year, all the way through from nine months up to their child starting school.
This will apply to working parents who individually earn more than £8,670 (from April 2023) but less than £100,000 per year. For couples the rules require both earn at least £8,670 and neither one can earn more than £100,000. Fair enough and this free childcare will allow us to match our European counterparts. Assuming of course that the provision is there to support the demand.
Nurseries are set to receive a £204 million cash boost and local authorities funding will increase to £289 million to support the promise to deliver the largest ever investment in childcare. Parents can expect to see an expansion in the availability of wraparound care from September 2024 but the industry claims it’s not enough to translates into an adequate supply of nursery places, trained staff and child minders. They predict a mismatch between costs and incomes that will force prices up to maintain profits. The lack of any form of state nursery provision leaves the sector vulnerable to market forces and offers no counterpoint to the private childcare approach until kids actually roll up at their state primary school.
It would be a massive step change but surely there’s a strong argument for state nurseries? Why not? After all we’re the only European country to be totally dependent on private nurseries. Rather than pumping £8b into the private sector what would it cost to buyout some existing nurseries and establish some new ones. Parents then have the choice of using the state supported ones for using their weekly allowance or pay the extra for private nannies, child-minders or nursery places. It’s just the same principle as is applied later in a child’s education.
Simplistic? Clearly there’s a significant set-up cost (a one-off one billion?) but a longer term better and more manageable solution beckons.
Create state nurseries as an alternative funded by removing VAT and business rate exemptions from the private nurseries,
So there’s something now in place for the first five years; parents will have the option to return to work once the maternity pay ceases knowing their children will be cared for. Good news for parents, children and employers.
School
The first task is to sort out the framework. So make it simple.
The state will be responsible for Primary and Secondary education and all state schools will be open to every child regardless of gender, ability or background. The goal is to persuade parents that their local school is more than capable of providing a decent, appropriate education and experience for their child. And while we’re at it, where the kids are in the catchment area, bring back the free school bus provision for children attending their designated local.
Any other school (mainly public schools, independents and faith schools) will be deemed to be private and therefore responsible for their own funding. They can charge what they like, take gifts from old alumni, select whoever they want as pupils. So long as they adhere to appropriate standards of care and operate within essential UK educational and tolerance boundaries they can act as they please.
No charity status, no VAT or business rate exemption for any non-sate school.
At the moment about 7% (570,000) of pupils are educated in the private sector. This figure has remained broadly level over the last decade but what is most striking is that over the same period whilst average spending per pupil in the state sector has remained at around £8000 in real terms the equivalent private spend per pupil (minus nurseries) has climbed from around from £12,000 to £15,200 almost doubling the gap. Clearly there are parents out there still happy to pay extra for their child’s education and the benefits of higher teacher ratios, better facilities and the future potential spin-offs of networks and established routes into higher education, careers and other roles in society.
Use the net £2 billion annual gain to effectively increase state school spending by 2%
Ignore the campaigning rhetoric of the private education sector about the disasters that would befall parts of the private sector if there tax privileges were removed. All the actual academic analysis and reports I’ve managed to find on the web suggests a net £1.5 billion annual gain to the state system equivalent to a 2% increase in state spending on schools. Even if private numbers declined by 100,000 (17%) pupils a year there is capacity in the existing state system to accommodate them over the next 7 years at least thanks to the falling birth rate numbers. And the argument that VAT revenues would consequently fall if children were ‘forced’ back into the state system don’t stack up. The parents would more than likely just divert their expenditure onto other VAT earning products and services.
The second task is to establish the basic pathway and standards.
In my opinion there wasn’t much wrong with the direction and subject matter I followed half century ago.
Primary School to get the basics (R, W, A) in place and introduce wider topics. Exercise, drama and music essential. Foundation social awareness and education replaces pure religious classes.
Junior School to develop the basics and broaden the exposure and detail of the wider topics. Exercise, drama and music essential. Next step social awareness and education.
Secondary School to be comprehensive with streaming.
Stream Year 7 and 8 based on their Primary School test and teacher assessment. Stream Year 9 10 and 11 based on their subject selection and Year 8 and 9 internal assessments (reports). The subjectivity of teacher assessments, the variability of test performances and the differing rates of pupil maturity, should ensure enough softness into the streaming process allowing upward, sideways and downward movement in the early secondary years.
From Year 9 offer a craft or social direction for those less suited to the more academic technical, scientific, art, language, social science pathway.
Everyone to do pretty much what I had to. The basics of maths and English, a range of sciences, languages and IT and the essentials of geography and a wider scope for history. Exercise, art, music and some drama all need to be there. Replace religion
Leave the GCSE’s and BTecs in place
Post 16 - School
Replace the three A-Levels subjects with five subjects, call it a British Baccalaureatereap the benefits of a broader knowledge base for the post 16 cohorts.
Existing schools with sixth-forms need to be developed sufficiently to absorb pupils at schools without who would otherwise have needed to go to a sixth-form college. This avoids the colleges attempting to duplicate all the subject content that schools are already capable of offering.
Post 16 - College
Realign back to what FE Colleges were originally conceived for: Taking kids bested suited for developing their technical, craft and social talents and teach them the basics of the various trades or roles they hope/think they want to pursue.
Get them to the point that by 17+ they’re ready for an apprenticeship or job.
Introduce a College Diploma that records all the subjects and skills they’ve acquired.
Let’s talk about the NEETS.
In June 2022 the ONS estimated the figure of 16-18 year olds to be a total of 300,000 representing around 10% of the total. That’s right 10% of our young people are lost to education and training, haven’t tasted the job market and are effectively economically inactive and more than likely a financial burden on their families and/or the benefit system. They need to be given a purpose that prevents them from moping around at home doing not a lot at best, or getting into trouble at worst.
So let’s bring back a form of National Service. For those roughly 120,000 for each year band that represents the NEETS, lets give them some structure. This means compulsory signing up either to a full-time ‘community army’ or to a ‘trainee military foundation’ for two years.
This approach is adopted by a range of western European countries including Holland, Denmark, Austria and Finland who see their young people emerging with a sense of worth and a better idea of what to look for. Completing the two year programme is a gateway to college, apprenticeship, other training or out into the workforce. Two options are proposed:
Community army - they’d live and work locally on projects, services and actions to benefit the community. Supported and mentored they’d receive basic training and get paid a proportion of the NMW which on a 30 hour week would be better than what they’d receive on universal credit. It’s a win all round as they’d gain some basic knowledge in practical tasks, people skills, confidence and respect. Government and society gets things done with little significant impact on the Treasury Bill.
Same approach with those that sign up for the military foundation course. They’ll focus not just on the soldiering skills but get a taster for the practical technical stuff and support activities.
Post 18 - College
The existing mix of T-levels, vocational, technical and applied courses appears more than adequate and traineeships, supported internships and apprenticeships are already part of the structure. The key is funding to ensure quality of course content and teaching combined with support from public and private employers. Companies, businesses and organisations need trained people at all levels. The reduction from just over 500,000 starts a year in 2011 to barely 349,000 in 2022 reflects the lack of foresight by both Government and employers.
At the moment only 2% of employers, those with pay bills over £3 million, are required to pay the levy which set at 0.5% of their pay bill. Any surplus not used on their own trainees will be allocated to other smaller employers. At the other end of the scale those employers with less than 50 people only need to pay 5% of the trainee costs.
So the training levy on organisations needs to be reviewed. The top end widened to pull in far more employers (payrolls above £1m) and the bottom end funded by by an increase in trainee cost to 10%. A corporation tax offset incentive should encourage recruitment of trainees over any short-sighted reduction feared by the levy increase.
Post 18 - University
(Ref Chapter xx - University Days for why and how we lost control of our universities and degree grading)
Student numbers have increased five-fold in the last forty years. A good thing provided our university network is living up to their brief of providing a relevant and appropriate mix of courses that is suitable for both the students and the nation.
The problem is that Further Education has become a business based on profit.
This results in short-sightedness, varying quality standards and a drive towards making money out of their customers if not strictly regulated.
Funding
If we expect the FE system to be producing future talent for the benefit of society, our public bodies and private enterprises then the bulk of the cost of this development should be borne by the government and employers. The result will be a four way funding partnership between the state, the student, the university and businesses. This should help encourage chancellors to focus on what they really need to be doing rather than what they think they’d like. It will also force them to look closely at standards and encourage further partnerships with business rather than milking the student cash cow.
So keep the current student loan arrangement and ceiling, cap the interest rate changes to base rate and peg the pay-back salary threshold to CPI. It’s not perfect and the various small anomalies need picking off.
Standards
A critical review of all the institutions calling themselves universities is needed to establish that the courses being offered meet stringent quality and content standards with associated minimum expectations of hours per week, staff capabilities. The review then requires that appropriate regulatory legislation which when combined with the funding focus from the DoE and contributing businesses should result in poor courses being scrubbed and chancellors suddenly realising that the gravy train has slowed down and they’d better start thinking about quality and improvement rather than the further enhancements of their somewhat privileged, shielded existence.
Realign the universities catering for middle ability students following more ‘technical’ or ‘practical’ directions with shorter or more specific courses. It may well be that they are redefined to be called back to what they actually are: eg technical colleges, art colleges, drama schools, nursing colleges.
Wrapped up with this approach is the need to add some realism in to the question of degree standards. The proliferation of Firsts and Two-ones is making the grading system meaningless so part of the standards review is to realign the expectations for the various levels.
So it’s all about a refocus to ensure value for money for the state, future employers
and the student themselves. Extra funding required yes but better results in the medium term and a jolt of realism for the sector.
So with a few structural changes, a bit of funding redistribution and a focus on relevant subjects for relevant institutions, and improved quality there’s the chance of a decent pathway for everyone. And even if a teenager loses his or her way there’s a ‘national service’ safety net that ensures they do something worthwhile providing experience and a platform for them to move forward. This should mean we have students leaving school, college, university or national service in a position to contribute to the economy and pay their own way in society.
But what happens to someone who can’t find a job or is unable to work?
3.A helping hand - the Welfare State
The goal: provide a ‘helping hand’ when needed and eradicate poverty. According to JR Foundation around 22% of the population lives in poverty. (Income < 60% of the median income and unable to afford a minimum life style without regularly sacrificing some basic essential we all would expect). This overall figure hasn’t improved for 12 years although pensioners and children groupings have improved at the expense of couples and single people.
Let’s review the main benefits. Most are broadly sufficient to support someone struggling and provide just enough incentive to get back to work when the opportunity arises. My opinion is that the vast majority of claimants would prefer not to have to claim and actually be in work. Clearly however the fraudulent need pursuing and the small minority working the system (scroungers?) reviewed regularly. Obviously the inflation link needs to be maintained.
Child Allowance
Its okay as it is provided the inflation link is maintained.
Universal Credit
It’s okay - capped at £22k pa for a couple with children (£25k in London). Inflation link and ‘being-in-work incentive curve to be maintained.
Jobseeker Allowance
It’s okay provided the inflation link is maintained. propose linking to wage-inflation index.
£67 a week for the under 24’s and £84 a week for everyone else. Paid for 6 months if the person has 3 years NI contributions after which it becomes included as part of the universal credit allowance. Less than three years NI and it immediately is part of the universal credit.
Requires an interview with a work coach and regular evidence of efforts to find work.
Ill Health and Disability Allowance
It’s okay – cross-refer to ‘Health’ section to see how this overall cost can be reduced in the long term. Annual changes should be linked to
SSP (Statutory Sick Pay) is okay at £109/wk, paid by the employer, for up to 28 weeks and usually requires a doctor certificate after seven days.
ESA (Employment and Support Allowance) is okay for those who are not getting SSP, or are sick and out of work or have a limited capacity for work. £84/wk for a single person or £133/wk for a couple.
LCWRA (Listed capacity for work related activity). This needs fixing. It’s worth an extra £390 a month if the DWP assessment concludes a person can’t do anything. The numbers, especially of low-income earners, who fall into this pot is rising steeply and now stands at nearly 3 million. The benefit amount is okay but the numbers must be reduced. Sorting out the health system backlog is a key step and more detailed and regular assessments are a must.
PIP (Personal Independence Payment) isokay for those unable to work due to a disability. For 2023, the daily PIP has increased to £101.75 for the enhanced rate and £68.10 for the standard rate. The mobility component has increased to £71.00 for the enhanced rate and £26.90 for the standard rate. The appropriate rates are based on an assessment by the DWP so it’s essential that regular, appropriate and detailed assessments are completed.
Housing Allowance
This is a complicated picture and varies significantly depending on individual or family circumstances and the type of rental property. When rents were relatively stable the existing allowances and criteria, when integrated into the overall universal credit picture, were just about sufficient to enable affordability. The last ten years have seen significant rent rises and the allowance hasn’t been increased to match.
It needs urgent review, probable simplification and, in the short to medium term, will need to increase to restore the balance. Incorporate sensible tenant and landlord protections.
The medium to long-term solution is to build many more affordable rental homes. This needs a massive commitment.
Housing
Build two million houses in five years with a further five million over the next seven years. Half to be affordable. A large proportion can be quick quality, eco friendly pre-fabs on undeveloped speculator land. (ie give the developers a year to start building or the land will be compulsory purchased) and edge of town prefab estates with appropriate amenities and transport networks.
Stop further sales of council or housing association homes.
Special Needs Allowance.
It’s just about okay at the moment. Bring in a triple lock link.
Carer Allowance
It’s just about okay at the moment. Bring in a triple lock link.
What about the old folks?
The state pension is the essential platform on which to start. As a minimum the £11,000 a year for most individuals is enough to keep most just the right side of the poverty line when combined with fuel allowances, universal credit options, care or carer allowances and pension credit. The fact that most pensioners either own there homes, and/or are in long-term affordable housing, and/or still with a pensionable partner, and/or have a supplementary private pension all helps. The vital key, especially for those lower down the scale, has been the triple lock which has helped lift the bulk of pensioners clear of poverty risk.
So
Keep the triple lock
Phased move of remaining public sector onto a career average arrangement.
Increase the contribution rate for both employer and employee in the ‘people’s pension’ and public sector by 1%.
What about when I can’t care for myself?
The priority is to keep folks in their own home.
This means the resources need to be in place which requires a big commitment to recruitment, quality and pay. The current arrangement that potentially ends state support after six weeks creates the risk that some will fall off the edge of a cliff. It needs appropriate sensible assessments but needs to be open-ended.
Rather like health and education there needs to be a state commitment to provide the basic service under the umbrella of the NHS.
We’re going to have to put more into the pot during our working lives - so we’ll need a separate care insurance premium on top of the national insurance.
People wanting extra services, higher quality, greater comfort and so on can sign up for private care. The current arrangement that potentially ends state support after six weeks creates the risk that some will fall off the edge of a cliff.
What about when I can no longer cope at home?
The deal has to follow the same principles. The state will ensure there are sufficient places in comfortable, respectful, local care and nursing homes. Those wanting extra comforts and higher standards need to pay for the extra difference. If its £25k a year cost for a place in a state home and £50k for a private option the private customer pays the difference of £25k.
The state cost again needs to be funded by the care insurance premium paid on earnings throughout a working life. If insufficient has been paid in then a claim on assets (house, savings etc) will be necessary. An index-linked cap of 30% of average regional house prices will need to be applied on asset assessment payments.
So it’s not generous but it should just about be adequate. A helping hand. Enough to feed and clothe and, when combined with a massive house-building programme to boost the availability of social housing, provide a roof over everyone’s head.
And whilst we’re at it.
It’s not just about benefits and allowances. Those in need or struggling require adequate support services so we need to build back an almost endless list of organisations and community groups that helped look after and nurture people. Youth Groups, Homeless Shelters, Drug Rehab, Old Folk Centres, Local Authority Support by Social Workers and Care Workers, Adult Education, Disabled, Legal Aid, Domestic Violence, etc etc etc etc. All have seen funding slashed over the last decade with the inevitable consequences.
Again it’s a big sum, (estimate restoring £3 billion a year that’s been taken out via austerity measures.) but it’s what the fabric of society really needs, especially at the bottom end.
4. Supposing I fall ill?
The NHS; the crown jewel of the post war social engineering that’s grown into an insatiable monster as the population has grown, aged and ‘let itself go’ whilst simultaneously costs have inflated, technologies advanced and treatments become sophisticated.
It’s never been completely free; sometimes the rhetoric about it being a ‘free’ service makes us tend to forget that it’s funded from the taxes we all pay. On the other hand we have expectations that we’ll receive a basic level of service that will take care of our problems within a reasonable time frame and most people understand that the challenges faced by the health service require both more money and better efficiency. It was just about in balance with a clearer view of the future growth and necessary cost strategies when the Tories came to power in 2010 and embarked on their austerity programme. And this is just one of the large factors behind the performance, under-resourced mess we’re now in.
In no particular order here are the actions required to get it back on a track and provide something of a roadmap for the future.
-Deal with some of the ‘demand’ side problems at source and educate/make/encourage the population to become healthier. Exercise campaigns, school PE, school dinners, sugar restrictions, fast-food, super-processed food, alcohol and smoking penal health taxes, cycle routes etc etc. It’ll take a generation for ‘prevention’ initiatives and actions to come through but vital to the monitoring, encouragement and enforcement is a regular GP MOT with appropriate action plans.
-Repeated failure, without good reason, to follow the health MOT needs to have consequences for adults and parents. Prescription charges? NI increase? Benefit reduction? Certainly a bit ‘big brother’ and enforcement agency needs to be careful but the nation needs to do something and it’s a duty of government to try and protect it’s citizens (even from big business, even from themselves).
-Figure out the number of GP’s, dentists, other health professionals and ancillary staff needed and create a proper manpower plan backed by a funded recruitment, training and remuneration commitments. It’s a big ask and a bigger cost even just to get back to something like the balance we had in 2010. But it’s also a national necessity.
-People can have choice. If they’re fortunate enough, or make the choice over other expenditure options, then a private route should be available. However there needs to be limits on the public/private mix for health care professionals. A minimum five year commitment to the NHS from the completion of training followed by a gradual phase down to a maximum of 50% for the following ten years. After that it remains at 50% or the individual has to leave and work entirely in private medicine.
-Figure out what’ the future requires for capital investment and subsequent maintenance in surgeries, hospitals, care homes and so on and create the appropriate funding plan. This will require some hefty borrowing but it’s capital and needs to be accounted accordingly.
-Sort out the inefficiencies starting with the lack of a shared database on patient records. Do we need the number of different health trusts and authorities with all the associated duplications and opportunities for bureaucratic delays? If yes, then employ skilled managers to run them and let the medical staff focus on the medical stuff.
Seriously costly for everything - but until our health improves there is no real choice. Let’s make people aware of how much it’s going to cost by breaking out the health cost from within the overall income tax paid. It’s what they do in Germany and a number of other countries. This enables the ‘health tax’ element to be raised or lowered independently of income tax and establishes a direct link to the health of the nation.
How can we get more tax revenue to help with all of this?
Well the win-win solution that we’ve known about since the days of John Maynard Keynes is pretty straightforward.
5. Grow the economy!
The first thing to remind everyone is that the ‘Keynes’ approach requires an act of faith; folks have got to believe that investing upfront will result in a long-term gains that will ultimately pay off the debt and leave a surplus and that, over the long-term, any modest inflationary trend will reduce the cost of the original down payment.
Bit like a mortgage or long-term financial investment then? Exactly; almost everyone emerges at the end of the process in a wealthier position than they started in.
Yeah but does it work on a national scale? Ever heard of the Marshall Plan that turned Germany from a bomb site into an economic power house or how successive UK governments dragged war weary Britain off its knees in a expansionary period of growth from the late forties to late sixties? The happy consequence of the growth was a huge reduction in the debt by the mid sixties.
And while we’re at it we need to actually do something serious about levelling up so the clearly the infrastructure improvements need to be sensibly spread around the nation. Just remember that the Germans are charging most tax-payers and business 5% to fund the levelling up of the old East Germany.
So how do we do it?
Begin by investing in medium and long-term infrastructure projects; house-building, power generation and networks, transport links, hospitals and so on. In fact all the things that our nation and economy will need in generations to come. Support it with appropriate investment in education, training and development. This government fuelled demand will filter through large, medium and small companies, boosting both profits and wages and allowing the resultant tax to start to make a dent in the cost side of the equation. Inflationary pressures need to have a control valve; skills shortages require targeted training and immigration whilst material costs need appropriate tariff policies to help mitigate.
But at the outset the fundamental investment requires borrowing; long-term government bonds issued for say 25 years and clearly matched with coherent long-term infrastructure, business and economic policies. The City will applaud the method rather than be spooked; it’s plan for the future with substance rather than a Truss-like call for lower taxes and the naive ‘hope’ that the entrepreneurs and markets will do the rest.
In summary: massive investment in visionary, yet necessary, capital projects funded by very long-term borrowing. The resultant tax revenues will finance the loans and the increasing tax surplus will go towards the extra funding needed for the improvement of other sectors.
If things show signs of starting to overheat just tweak those tax rates up a notch on those that can afford it.
More on tax later.
Easy!
Okay so now we’ve offered a more democratic efficient approach to the constitution and our representation. We’ve recognised the absolute essentials of education, health and housing and acknowledged that it’s going to cost a shedload of money to get us back on track in these areas. The only long-term option for funding for all of this is a growing economy and that requires a Keynesian approach; visionary capital projects to drive the demand and the resultant healthy economy will generate the tax revenues. Just need to kick start it with some borrowing and a sensible investment plan that the financial markets will buy into.
A bit more on the key areas that will provide the necessary framework.
Energy - it’s going to have to be a mix. Renewables for the normal load with a nuclear back up.
So let’s get serious about it.
Firstly form a not-for-profit energy company ‘British Energy’ that will be tasked with a steady acquisition of the customer base of the private companies and overall coordination and responsibility for the power infrastructure currently run by National Grid plc, a consortium of private institutions.
Renewables - mandatory for all new house builds to have solar panels and heat pump heating. Same for new public buildings in addition to requiring current public buildings to retrofit a minimum capacity if practical.
Old power stations and coal mines to be potential sites for solar farms or mini-nuclear plants assuming companies like Rolls-Royce can confirm the open questions around technology, costs, and efficiency. Build the necessary wind farms, even on the South Downs, and back a few of the tidal projects to confirm their practicality and efficiency. Just crack on with it and simultaneously ensure the power line/transformer network keeps up with demand. Planning rules to be applied that balances sensitive common sense with necessity ensuring every region and neighbourhood plays its part.
Nuclear - we’re going to need three more mega plants more Hinckley Point is on stream. Just confirm which of Oldbury, Sellafield, Sizewell, Wylfa, Bradwell, Hartlepool and Heysham will be the sites and use govt bonds and a ‘futures’ tax on the energy companies and consumers to fund it. If the energy companies don’t like it then there will have to be legalisation to get them to cough up or sell up to BE.
TRANSPORT - another great opportunity when synced with the Levelling-Up agenda. The almost exclusive dependence on the movement of people and goods by road is short-sighted from a cost, efficiency and environmental standpoint so let’s get the railways up to scratch and encourage people back onto public transport or two wheels via a sensible integrated transport strategy.
So once again it’s big investment in the neglected rail network and fleet. The Government has already reabsorbed a number of the failing franchises back into quasi-public ownership so sensibly needs to continue the process and effectively re-nationalise the whole rail system. And don’t limit ourselves to just the trains; the ferries are also effectively monopolies on a number of key routes so there’s a need to establish a ‘British Ferry’ not-for-profit company. (The French have managed it with Brittany Ferries very successfully and we don’t have to look beyond France and Germany to see how a public rail network can be operated).
On the buses it requires another step forwards (or rather backwards to how they used to provide a comprehensive public service rather than a focus on the more profitable routes). The current franchise owners need to sign up to robust minimum service levels on prices, routes and frequencies or it’s back to public ownership on a not-for-profit basis. And yes, some routes will need to be subsidised by the more popular ones and a watchdog of qualified, experienced, hard-nosed analysts will need to monitor, recommend and enforce the operation and charging regimes. It can be done; just have a day on London Transport to see what a good integrated system actually looks like. Trams systems are definitely one possibility (Nottingham, Edinburgh, Manchester..) but come at a financial and disruptive short-term cost so careful consideration is required for each particular potential opportunity.
This brings up the issue around ‘how do we ensure operational efficiency and appropriate costing’ for public owned not-for-profit organisations? The old arguments, usually heard from the right-wing press about inefficiencies and financial black-holes (usually conveniently omitting one of the major root causes; massive under investment by conservative central government) and the risk of being ‘held to ransom’ by powerful labour unions do need to be countered.
Meanwhile there also needs to be a focus on encouraging people to cycle and walk. Improved segregation, many more bike lanes, traffic light sequence prioritisation (see Barcelona for a good example), driver education and penalties. Link this to health education and awareness.
6. Environment
We want a country where we can breathe clean air, swim in clean waters, walk along paths clear of discarded waste, eat food free from risky contents, appreciate natural landscapes and wildlife whilst recognising the demands of a growing economy and rising population. These objectives are intrinsically linked with our overall need to hit targets associated with the threats of climate change.
The move towards renewable energy, electric vehicles, etc are necessary trends that cannot be allowed to falter. However there are many more actions that require acceleration; here’s a number of the key steps.
Let’s begin with water where it’s abundantly clear that weak regulation and privatisation has resulted in inadequate investment as surplus incomes have ended up in foreign private sector pockets, leaving rivers and beaches continually polluted by waste overspills, low-lying areas at risk of flooding and day to day supplies vulnerable to failures within the significant remnants of the old networks.
Once again the industry needs to be brought back into public ownership; proper regulation and effective management the vital ingredients. Of course its going to cost, not just to make up the short-comings but to prepare for the future, so we’re back to the infra-structure investment discussion with the financial world. Long-term borrowing against a long-term plan; something the banks appreciate as it’s a win-win for everyone once the growth revenues start to appear. Tough for the de-privatised companies but they’ve had their surplus returns in previous years so they’ll get the value of the assets and no more.
In the atmosphere it’s not just about CO2 emissions from power stations and vehicles. Clean air acts have made big strides in regulating industrial emissions but have completely ignored the impacts of air travel, gas drilling flaring and livestock methane, a far more serious source which can be upto 30 times more potent s a greenhouse gas than CO2, albeit for a short period.
Air travel, sadly has become too cheap and needs some additional air-travel climate tax. Not great for foreign holidays or business jollies but better for the environment which everyone shares (especially the 58% of our population who don’t take any flights each year.)
As usual the petrochemical giants have been taking us for fools; the burn-off of the waste gas from drilling operations is almost pure methane and accounts for over 5% of our GHG emissions. Immediately introduce legislation and taxes to encourage a swift move to capture and alternative use.
It’s a similar story in agriculture; assuming we’re not going to change our diets significantly in the immediate future then our meat and dairy herd waste needs to be captured and used as an alternative energy source (still not ideal but far less potent) and natural fertiliser. In this case it will require agricultural legislation and incentives/subsidies to change the behaviour of the last hundred years.
And whilst we’re on farming there has to be a strengthening of the rules around other wastes and run-off with proper enforcement; no more turning a blind eye to the farming lobby or just accepting that farmers are the ‘custodians of the countryside’ (some are, some aren’t).
And to finish off we need to start reducing the other particulates that are floating around out there, happily waiting for us to breathe in. Soot from exhausts should reduce with the Clean Air Zones and the move to electric vehicles but there’s nothing currently that aims to control the micro-particles that are a consequence of tire wear or the breakdown of plastics. An urgent review and enforceable legislation is a priority.
It’s a similar story with land use where there’s got to be a sensible balance between efficient utilisation and protection of the natural heritage.
In agriculture the regulations need to be tightened on field-size, fertilisers, fallow percentages, hedge-row, watercourse and woodland protection.
In forestry the rules must allow for a much higher blend of native woodland alongside/within forestry plantations. It’s going to be a long process but the biggest scope for re-establishing a greater number of trees across the country is to persuade landowners to get planting and pursue some re-wilding initiatives; undoubtedly this will mean some tax allowances or subsidies.
A word on access - whether it’s heritage buildings, country estates or grouse moors, part of the contract with the rest of us should be a right of access. The National Trust provides a good model to landowners of how to achieve this balance. Whether it’s footpaths, bridal tracks or river navigation we need to share what we’ve got. Again undoubtedly this will mean some tax allowances or subsidies.
And other matters of a socio-political nature? Well hunting is on the decline and will eventually become unacceptable and unaffordable.
All these changes to our society, all this investment in the people, the infrastructure and our environment, all the economic benefits we hope to accrue need to be protected. We don’t want evil third parties, bully boy states, and criminal individuals messing it all up for the rest of us.
7. Defence, Law and Order - protecting what we’ve got?
Let’s start at a national level; how do we defend ourselves?
I’m broadly happy with the current status with the armed forces; clearly we’re not currently geared up to fight a world war but we’re resourced well enough to discourage aggression against us and compliment our NATO allies approach to mutual defence. There’s definitely scope for more effective procurement and far too much waste within the system so a shake-up of the managerial controls and targets is a necessary first step.
But the biggest change is both fiscal and moral. It’s time to phase out Trident. It’s costing £10 billion a year to maintain the fleet and warheads for the next 15 years. This represents approximately 20% of the entire defence budget or 7% of the NHS budget; let’s have think about what else we can do with that money and whether a costly defence deterrent capable of wiping out the planet is where we really what we want.
How about splitting the Trident money there ways: 1/3 into cyber security, 1/3 into boosting the conventional armed forces and 1/3 into an alternative under-resourced area like Health or Housing where an extra £3 billion a year can really make a difference.
This effectively triples the cyber security expenditure and their mission will be to create a ‘Cyber Deterrent’ that would discourage any outside threat by having the capability of taking down (and keeping down) an aggressors economy and associated infrastructures without turning their homeland into a nuclear wasteland.
And now what are we going to about Law and Order? How do we get trust and competence back within our police, justice system and prisons?
The police need to be dragged into the 21st century; not necessarily with technology where they’re not too far behind the criminals but much more from a behavioural, ideological and diversity point of view.
Corruption, bullying and out-dated attitudes have to be driven out by competent leaders with integrity and the police can no longer be allowed to ‘police themselves’ so the watchdog needs to be given teeth and resources.
But it’s no good having coppers with integrity if they can’t catch the bad guys because they’re under resourced. It’s another case of having to pay more for the service we want. Responding to burglaries, shop lifting, public nuisances is important to society. Catching the perpetuators equally so therefore it’s a cliché but we need more bobbies on the beat and sufficient backroom staff to deal with the reporting and analysis and the latest tech’ to enable them to do the job.
The next step is to do with the judicial system. It’s no good nabbing the villains if it then takes several years to bring them to court. So several major steps are needed here. Firstly restoring the value of legal aid and the amount paid to the legal aid solicitors. Secondly applying timescales for prosecutions to be brought to court and thirdly ensuring enough court time is available. Again it’s partially down to resources.
And what do we do about our neglected, over-crowded, embarrassment of a prison system that can’t cope with the numbers on remand or serving a sentence? An environment that can’t offer much in the way of re-education or rehabilitation and reform for its inmates. Bottom line again is the usual mix of quality leadership and resources combined with some new builds and refurbishment.
A few words on immigration
25 years from now a quarter of the UK population will be pensioners and with UK birth rates now 10% less than UK death rates and still falling there just aren’t going to be enough people in the workforce to support the economy, pay the taxes, and look after those at either end of the age profile.
At the very least we need 100,000 a year just to hold the birth/death rate position and probably treble that to 300,000 to allow for the trends and projected economic growth. Plus another 100,000 to replace those who choose to emigrate each year we end up with an annual rough figure of half a million.
Now let’s recognise that within this number we need to accept a share of the worlds refugees, some of whom will be asylum seekers, some seeking either temporary shelter or permanent relocation, and some taking a chance as ‘economic migrants’ to just try and improve their circumstances. The current assessment process is woeful and time consuming and needs rapid overhaul.
First a premise. The vast majority of migrants will, after a period of settling in, be net contributors to the British economy; certainly within a generation their children will be.
So let’s suggest that of the 500,000 migrants we need each year, 300,000 will be migrants applying (or invited) with the skills we need. That leaves 200,000 that we need to take a punt on and this number can come mainly from genuine refugees and genuine asylum seekers who have applied through normal channels and formal processes. To facilitate this we need a functioning ‘application desk’ in each embassy and consulate with a UK Centre for policy, coordination and assessment being handled electronically, rapidly ( 2 weeks ?) with a common sense, sympathetic approach to war zone scenarios. Recognising that some may still ‘bypass’ or fail to make it to an ‘application desk’ and take the desperate ‘smuggler’ illegal option there’s a need for an additional application processing facility somewhere in northern France.
Failure to visit there and apply formerly before attempting to cross by illegal means needs to carry the likelihood of a flight back to their home country.
Combine this with a determined, resourced effort alongside other European countries to beat the smuggling gangs.
Not perfect but it’s a policy that acknowledges, rather than vilifies, the need for migration. One that recognises we have a responsibility to take a share of displaced persons and simultaneously deals with the realities of the movements and types of people involved.
Actually if we stop and think about it many of the root causes in today’s refugee crises can be attributed to foreign policy blunders over the last 100 years. Just look at the Middle East, Libya and Afghanistan for a couple of examples.
FOREIGN POLICIES
Let’s break them down into relationships, which can be either of a partnership or supportive nature, and crises.
Crises.
The days of empire are over; we’re just not big enough or resourced well enough to intervene in major conflicts on our own no matter how aggrieved, guilty or incensed we feel. Consequently any significant involvement has to done as part of our NATO commitment and therefore requires consensus with our partners. Combined with any military involvement must be proper consideration of the knock on consequences and a practical ‘what after’ plan.
Smaller outbreaks of trouble involving the clear immediate risk of humanitarian disasters could conceivably be a reason for ‘surgical’ brief stand alone actions or peace-keeping deployments but only at the request of democratically elected leaders.
Partnerships
The basic premise should be that it’s almost always better to work with partners rather than against. It spreads costs, it spreads knowledge, it spreads risk, it fosters good relationships, it opens markets.
We’ve messed up by leaving the EU and almost all the the recent trade deals have been on similar terms to that which previously existed.
The way forward is to rebuild relationships and arrangements; join those alliances we still can in areas like science, education, and security.
For a global role the UK needs to establish a credible, trustworthy, pragmatic persona rather than pretending we really have a military, Security Council role with any clout. There is a role to be done as a ‘global diplomat’, a nation that can act as arbiter, an advisor able to offer common sense comments, advice and solutions. A nation that the UN can look to for support and diplomatic action.
7. FINANCES
In 2023 the government income was £1,061 billion, approximately 41% of GDP, and the equivalent of about £17,200 per adult or £35,000 per household.
(France 45% Germany 40%)
Expenditure was planned to be £1,184 billion which would therefore add £123 billion to the national debt.
The national debt in Oct 2023 stands at £2,546 billion, financed at an average of 4.2%.
The GDP in Oct 2023 is £2525 billion so Debt to GDP ratio is currently 1.01.
(USA 1.1, France 0.92, Italy 1.3, Germany 0.69)
INCOME 2023 £billion %
Total 1061 100
Income tax 268 26
National Insurance 172 16
VAT 162 15
Other 93 9
-Fuel 24
-Alcohol 13
-Tobacco 10
-Vehicle 9
-Environment 8
-Insurance premium 8
-ETS auctions 6
-Customs 5
-Air passenger 4
-Betting 4
-Climate Change 2
Capital 42 4
-Capital Gains 18
-Stamp Duty 17
-Inheritance 7
Company Taxes 96 9
-Corporation 85
-Energy windfall 5
-Apprenticeship levy 3
-Electricity generation levy 3
Council Tax 44 4
Business Rates 40 4
Other taxes 37 3
Non-tax receipts 107 10
- Operating surplus/deficit 63
- Interest and dividends 42
EXPENDITURE 2023 £billion %
Total 1184 100
Pensions 204 18
Health 220 19
Education 108 9
-Nursery 4
-Primary 16
-Secondary 73
-Tertiary 7
Security 44 4
-Police 7
-Fire 1
-Courts 8
-Prison and probation 6
-Public order and safety 20
Defence 60 5
-The Forces 50
-Foreign military aid 3
-Foreign economic aid 5
-R&D 2
Transport 46 4
-Railways 23
-Roads 7
-London 2
-Other public transport 2
-Ports 1
-Capital projects 7
Welfare 162 14
-Family and children 15
-Unemployment 1
-Housing 7
-Social exclusion and protection 120
Other Public Services 198 17
-Agriculture/fishing/forestry 7
-Fuel and energy 43
-Broadcasting 5
-Sport and facilities 6
-Misc other areas < 1 55
-Accounting Adjustments 82
Central Government 28 2
Debt Interest 107 1
Proposed increases to fund the manifesto (£billions) - £116 billion 10%
Health 40 (18%), Nursery 5 (125%), Primary 2 (12%), Secondary 7 (10%), Tertiary 3 (43%), Police 2 (29%), Courts 2 (25%), Prison 2 (33%), Foreign aid 1 (20%), Railways 10 (44%), Transport projects 6 (100%), Housing 7 (100%), Social exclusion 12 (10%), Energy 10 (23%), Sports 3 (50%), Broadcasting 1, Agriculture, fishing, forestry 1 (14%), Debt 1 (10%)
Where is the extra £116 billion coming from?
Change Amount raised (£b)
Income tax 1p 6
Higher rate (£45k pa) 2p 3
National Insurance 1% 4
NEW Levelling-Up Tax - 1p on income tax 1 6
NEW Old-Age Care - 1p on income tax 1 6
VAT +1% 1% 6
Corporation Tax +2% 2% 12
Energy Windfall x 2 100% 5
Capital Gains x 2 100% 18
Inheritance - freeze 0 2
Apprentice levy x 2 100% 6
Fuel +10% 10% 2
Alcohol +10% 10% 1
Tobacco +20% 20% 2
Betting +10% 10% 1
Air travel +20% 20% 1
Vehicle +10% 10% 1
Elec gen levy x 2 100% 3
Climate levy x 2 100% 2
Private School rates 3
Non-dom status 4
Borrow (25 year gilts at 4%) 24