Peter Black

So much has already been written about the budget that it seems almost indecent to add to it, however, I just wanted to highlight one aspect that so far has received little attention.

Opposition politicians have quite rightly attacked the impact of the increase in employers' national insurance contributions on business and whether this measure breaches a Labour manifesto promise. For the record, I think it is a breach, that it will have an impact but that the Chancellor needed to raise money somehow to fill in the financial black hole she inherited. 

I have just stumbled across a quite astonishing headline in the Independent, which reports that a Northern Rail official has admitted the operator still uses fax machines to communicate with its train crews.

The paper says that the shocking admission came as Northern mayors were grilling the rail operator on its poor performance on Wednesday, with issues raised including staffing problems, underinvestment, bad communication, and a lack of coordination with other parts of the sector – which has all led to repeated cancellations and growing anger among passenge:

When Andy Burnham put to the rail official that he had heard Northern is still using fax machines, they argued that it was an issue of “depth and complexity” that would require a change in the agreement made with colleagues – a point disrupted by the incredulous Greater Manchester mayor.

The Financial Times reported Mr Burnham posed the question over the use of fax machines: “Can that possibly be true?” to which the official responded, “It is very much true, chair.”

The mayor demanded an explanation, “How? How on earth is that the case in 2024?” with the official replying: “That is a very fair and reasonable question. It’s our challenge to get rid of them. We have plans to get rid of them.”

Mr Burnham stated: “You could do it tomorrow.” And the official agreed – but when the mayor asked if the operator was going to, they admitted it was not, “because the tools we use to get information and messages to our crew rely on faxes, amazingly. We will get there before we’re forced to because fax technology, in telecoms terms, turns off. Our plan that we’re putting forward...”

Mr Burnham interrupted: “People will say: ‘How come we have three decades of privatisation when money was being poured into the railway and you are still communicating via fax machines in 2024?’”

The official admitted: “It is a very fair question. Our job is to get rid of them. Our job is to unleash the full potential of emerging technological revolution,” but added that the “right agreement with our colleagues” needs to be reached.

The mayor responded: “I hear what you say but it tells me though that your modernisation plan, like your training plan, is moving nowehere near fast enough. You could get rid of this stuff tomorrow. You could put in place IT to support people to communicate differently.”

What hope is there for public transport when organisations like Northern Rail appear to be stuck in the 1970s in the way it administers its business?

The Guardian reports on claims by fresh produce sellers and plant growers that new Brexit border checks are reducing consumer choice and compromising Britain’s food security.

The paper says that a joint letter from the Fresh Produce Consortium (FPC) and the Horticultural Trades Association (HTA) has called for an urgent meeting with the government over the continued problems their members face when importing plants and cut flowers under the current border system:

The letter, from the HTA, which represents garden retailers and growers, and the FPC, which represents 700 fresh produce suppliers and distributors, comes six months after new post-Brexit border checks on plant and animal products coming into the country from EU countries were introduced.

From 30 April this year, plants for planting and some cut flowers coming into Britain from the EU became subject to checks at border control posts across Britain.

Before this, plants were inspected at their point of destination, meaning nurseries and growers could store them in controlled environments on site.

The border changes, brought in to mirror the checks on British exports going into Europe, were intended to improve Britain’s biosecurity and prevent the spread of disease between plants in the country.

However, in their letter the two groups said trade in edible plants, such as fresh fruit and vegetables, and non-edibles including finished plants, bulbs and seeds, had seen “significant challenges”, with importers facing rising costs, increased risk of delays or damage to orders, as well as cumbersome paperwork.

It added: “This situation has led to reduced consumer choice, strained business relationships, a tarnished UK business reputation, diminished confidence in border processes, compromised food security, and setbacks in achieving our environmental targets.”

The letter sets out 10 immediate actions from the government that could improve the flow of goods from the EU to Britain, while also protecting businesses from increased costs:

These included agreeing a plant health agreement with the EU based on mutual recognition of standards, removing barriers in the current border control post system that stop inspectors carrying out checks after 5pm, while also calling for inspections to meet the agreed four-hour service level agreement set by the government.

It has also called for the removal of the £145 common user charge (CUC) fee at the government-run border control post in Sevington, Kent, which processes all checks coming through the Port of Dover and Channel tunnel.

The letter says the charge should be halted for 12 months while a review of the economic impacts of the border policy is carried out.

Those arguing for Brexit in 2016 claimed that it would reduce red tape for businesses. in fact the opposite is the case and as a result business owners are struggling.

Age UK has found four-in-five pensioners living below or just above the poverty line will lose their winter fuel payment as a result of Rachel Reeves' decision to limit payment to those on pension credit, while research by the Resolution Foundation has found that nearly 7.7 million (37 per cent of) households will be at risk of “fuel stress” this winter and will struggle to heat their homes. It’s even more severe in single-parent households, the number jumping to 77 per cent.

Having started from the position of promising an energy revolution, with a proposed £28 billion a year investment on green energy projects like offshore wind farms and developing electric vehicles, Labour first muddied the waters, then it u-turned to promise just £15 billion a year, now it is penalising pensioners by making them choose between heating and eating, while all the noises coming from government implies that we will be lucky to see that amount committed to the plan.

The Politics Home points out that one of Labour's few unashamedly ‘retail’ promises in the Labour manifesto, that families’ average energy bills would be up to £300 lower by the end of the decade is now in jeopardy.

The website says the recent increase in the energy price cap – as well as the decision to remove universal entitlement of pensioners to winter fuel allowance – has put that pledge in the spotlight. And that, although Ed Miliband, the Energy Secretary, seeks to use the recent rise in wholesale gas prices to underscore the case for ending fossil fuel energy in the UK by 2030, thus freeing ourselves from a notoriously volatile market and ensuring that British families can benefit from reliably cheap renewable energy, there is no indication as to who is going to pick up the bill:

With many facing a winter of uncertainty, there are concerns that some decarbonising costs could be passed on to consumers too, who will then be expected to stump up even more money – at least in the short term. “The investment needed to get there will mean that in the interim there’s a risk of higher bills,” says Alex Belsham-Harris, head of energy consumer markets at Citizens Advice.

And if the short-term vagaries of the energy market are difficult, they are dwarfed by the challenge of moving the nation off gas boilers and onto clean alternatives like heat pumps. Lower-income households will inevitably find it a challenge to pay for any additional costs, however small, to decarbonise their homes. “What’s happened in the past is paying for net-zero policies through levies has actually made low-income households disproportionate sponsors of those policies when they’re not necessarily getting the benefits,” warns Copeland. “The government has to make it easier for the poorest to make this a just transition. If we don’t, the poorest will suffer most,” urges Lord Deben, former chair of the Climate Change Select Committee.

A No 10 source agrees that you cannot put the cost of the transition onto the taxpayer. “Our whole country, pretty much, is dependent on fossil fuels to heat their homes and we need to change that,” says a Labour MP, who explains that local authorities should be given powers, alongside third-sector partners, to offer green upgrades to households that can be paid in instalments to avoid upfront costs.

“You need to do it at scale because if you leave it to individual consumer choice you will end up with very high costs, either for the consumer or the state,” they add.

"We’re obviously going to have to mobilise a lot of public and private investment behind this if we’re going to be able to deliver it at scale and in a way that really delivers benefits for consumers, not just in security, but in their back pockets through bills too,” says Strathern. So far, just 250,000 out of 28 million households have had heat pumps installed, likely in part due to a costly installation process.

“There are ways of structuring the financing of this kind of thing that will keep the costs for consumers down,” maintains the Labour MP, but doesn’t explain what these might be. “It could only be done either through massive energy bill increases for consumers or through massive tax rises,” says Conservative peer Lord Hannan, adding, “neither of those is really a credible option.”

And the cost of installation isn’t the only issue. “Your costs don’t always reduce if you use a heat pump instead of a boiler – in fact they can increase,” says Copeland.

But the Labour MP counters: “They don’t have to be expensive to install, and they don’t have to be expensive to run, if you get the regulatory framework right, and that’s what the government needs to be doing.”

For pensioners the cost of decarbonising their home would simply not be worth the upfront costs. “If you haven’t got many years to live, you’re not going to have time to be able to reap the financial rewards of moving to a more energy efficient home and a lot of older people are in that position,” points out Caroline Abrahams, director of Age UK.

“It is an utterly unachievable project,” argues Hannan, who predicts the 2030 target will not be reached. “When we get to the expense of having to replace boilers and so on, I think attitudes will change very quickly. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Ed Miliband is the first Cabinet minister to resign,” he says.

“This might seem like a foreign concept, but it’s because we have chosen not to embrace a strategic approach to decarbonising our energy system and that’s what we’re going to do,” insists the Labour MP.

The decisions that will be announced in tomorrow's budget and over the next few months will be crucial in determining whether this energy revolutionn can be achieved, or whether it will prove too expensive and too difficult for the government to commit too.

Is it me. or are the media stories surrounding the run-up to Labour's first budget getting a bit hysterical? Warnings about businesses going to the wall if the employer's national insurance levy is raised, opposition politicians accusing the government of breaking manifesto pledges and even suggesting that the Office of Budget Responsibility is politically biased, stories about households panicking, workers facing a £3,000 pay cut and talk of a mega-inflation-busting increase in the minimum wage are all rife at the moment.

To be fair, some of the speculation about what is likely to be in Rachel Reeves' speech is likely to be right, if only because she and her colleagues have been slowly releasing details in an effort to soften us up. It's also the case that Labour have painted themselves into a corner on this one by announcing straightaway that they found a £22billion black hole in the nation's finances, while at the same time tying their own hands in closing this gap by promising not to raise income tax, VAT or national insurance paymeents, all measures that could quickly deal with the deficit.

I don't want to get involved in the speculation, except to say that from a government point of view, this must be one of the most ineptly managed lead-ins to a budget for some considerable time. When you have ministers from Keir Starmer downwards, tying themselves in knots, while struggling to define what working people are, just so they can create some fiscal room for manoeuvre, then you know that they are in trouble.

One article I can identify with is this one in the Guardian. This quotes a poll of 500 UK business leaders undertaken on behalf of the TUC, which found that UK businesses are losing staff working time because of waits for healthcare or caring duties due to underfunded public services.

The paper reports that more than half of these business leaders said workers had to take time off in the last year because of problems accessing public services:

The TUC said the extent of time lost to public service pressures showed that the government should spend more on repairing services. While higher taxes tend to be unpopular with businesses, the union body argued that better public services would help UK companies to grow by allowing workers to be more productive.

The polling, carried out by Opinium, suggested that 35% of business leaders – ranging from small business owners up to management of large businesses – had staff absent while waiting for hospital treatment, and 17% for mental health treatment.

The Institute for Public Policy Research, a thinktank with close links to Labour, has previously argued that poor health is holding back the UK economy. It said last month that the 900,000 people lost to the labour force since the coronavirus pandemic would cost HMRC £5bn in lost revenue this year.

Caring duties were also a drain on time, with nearly a fifth of bosses saying staff took time off to fill in for social care for an adult relative, while 17% said workers took time off because they were unable to find childcare.

This poll underlines once again how our care system is broken and how it is pulling the health service down with it. 

Already we are seeing advance spin on the budget including promises of billions of pounds extra for infrastructure works, and billions of pounds extra for the health service in England funded by an increase in employers national insurance contributions.

LBC suggest that NHS day-to-day budget could see an increase of around three to four per cent for this year as well as 2025-26 - totalling £10 billion a year, though this has not been confirmed:

Extra details on Labour's pledge for 40,000 more appointments and operations a week are also expected to be announced.

But senior NHS leaders have said focusing on routine operations could be at the expense of emergency care.

NHS Confederation chief Matthew Taylor said focusing on routine operations "must not be to the detriment of the very real and immediate pressures facing emergency care this winter".

Writing in the paper, Ms Pritchard said the NHS had been told by the government that "there will be no NHS investment without reform".

"Far from being daunted, we welcome that," she said.

A recent review found that, despite the hospital workforce increasing by 17 per cent in four years, surgeons are performing 12 per cent fewer operations and A and E doctors or nurses are seeing 18 per cent fewer people.

There is no doubt that reform is needed, but will throwing money at the problem work, and what kind of reform does she have in mind? It is likely that this extra money will hardly touch the sides, and without proper funding to increase capacity in social care and support carers, its impact may well be limited.

Starmer and Reeves' bigger problem however is Labour already patch record on the health service. Here in Wales where Labour have run health and social care for twenty five years, we are well past crisis point. As the jounalist Will Hayward points out in his latest e-newsletter, the latest Welsh NHS waiting list data is out and they are now longer than they have ever been, exceeding even the Covid period.

He says that the list of those waiting over one or two years has been rising month on month through the summer:

The overall total is also going up. Welsh Labour have said they are putting in an extra £28m to tackle the longest waits but it will take some time to see if this makes an impact in data.

It is also worth noting that ailments do not stay the same while someone is on a waiting list. They often become more severe and complex meaning that when you eventually do come to treat it, it is a far harder proposition. A stitch in time (literally) saves nine. This is to say nothing to the other issues that come with long term illness like weight issues and mental health deterioration.

If Welsh Labour are no longer the largest party come 2026, it will be the inability to get these lists down which will be the primary reason.

A Reeves injection of new money into the health service will generate quite a big Barnett consequential for Wales, possibly as much as half a billion pounds. That would be very welcome, but if the Welsh Labour government do not use it well, then the problems will continue.

Labour's record in Wales is a major embarrassment for Starmer. Can they fix it? We will see.

The Guardian reports on the views of industry representatives that Brexit has added up to £370m a year to the price of power supplies from Europe, meaning that the total energy costs of leaving the EU could amount to £10bn by the end of the decade:

Before Brexit, the UK procured power through the EU’s internal electricity market, which brought together bids and offers in a system known as “single day-ahead coupling”, using an algorithm to optimise pricing and flows.

The UK imports and exports electricity through interconnectors – huge undersea cables – to Norway, Ireland, France, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands.

After the post-Brexit trade deal came into force in January 2021, the British market was no longer part of the algorithmic system, reducing the efficiency of trading and pushing up costs.

“One of the unfortunate consequences of Brexit is that we have been left with these very inefficient trading arrangements, and there is a cost to that,” said Energy UK’s deputy director, Kisha Couchman.

“There’s been upwards of somewhere between £100m and £370m and that has ultimately been borne by the consumer,” she told a British Irish Chamber of Commerce conference in Dublin.

The price increase is another consequence of leaving the single market under the “hard Brexit” sought and sealed by Boris Johnson’s government in late 2020.

Energy UK said relinking the UK to a unified trading operation would not only reduce the cost of electricity, but also create a “greater incentive for decarbonisation across both jurisdictions”.

It said a return to a more efficient import and export arrangement would benefit both the UK and the EU as they strive to achieve net zero by 2050.

“Linkage is critical for the UK and EU industries and is supported by British and European industry and civil society alike. This should be a priority for the new UK government to address,” it said in a recent report.

In a briefing issued this week, Energy UK said

“Unless the UK moves toward closer cooperation with the EU on energy and climate it may lead to additional costs of up to £10bn this parliament through higher energy bills and lower Treasury revenues,” it said.

It calculated that energy trading outside the bloc was costing the UK £120m to £370m a year. It also estimates a further £800m in carbon tax charges the EU plans to introduce on imports from 2026.

According to its analysis, the Treasury will lose between £900m and £2.4bn in revenue a year as a result of a reduction in demand for UK energy that new emissions trading rules are expected to trigger as the EU implements its carbon border adjustment mechanism in 2026.

It notes the UK is likely to become a net exporter of electricity by 2030, but that the new carbon tax barriers “will make it harder for the UK to fulfil its potential”.

Previous research found that the change to trading arrangements over the interconnectors can add between 0.25% and 0.7% to wholesale costs, with £90m to £250m added in 2021.

Maybe they should have put that on the side of the bus.

With less than a week to go to the first Labour budget since 2009, speculation is rife as to what exactly Rachel Reeeves plans to do to raise the £40billion she says is needed to fill the black hole inherited from the Tories, while shoring up our long-neglected public services.

One route is to tax wealth, an area long-neglected by government, with the result that those holding substantial assets are paying proportionally less tax than somebody on the basic rate.

The Independent reports that Keir Starmer is under pressure to re-examine the UK’s relationship with the European Union, as a new group of MPs from across the political spectrum has formed to urge the prime minister to forge closer ties with the bloc.

The paper says that the group, which aims to “discover areas of mutual co-operation and interest” and probe the UK-EU relationship, held its first meeting on Tuesday:

The group will seek to “foster positive relationships with colleagues across Europe”, as well as “encouraging an open and honest dialogue for politicians of all stripes”, co-chair Dr Rosena Allin-Khan said.

The meeting was attended by multiple prominent Labour backbenchers including Dawn Butler, Yasmin Qureshi and Marsha de Cordova.

Former Labour MP Rosie Duffield, who now sits as an independent after quitting the party, was also in attendance, as well as Liberal Democrat, SNP and Green MPs.

Sir Keir has faced criticism for his decision to disband the European Scrutiny Committee after Labour won the last election, with MPs now forming their own group to fill the democratic void.

The first meeting of the new All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Europe, chaired by Dr Allin-Khan and Tory peer Lord Kirkhope, saw multiple parliamentarians express their dismay that there wasn’t another avenue for discussion and scrutiny on European issues since the axing of the committee, sources in attendance told The Independent.

At the time, the decision was dubbed a “disgrace” by Sir Bill Cash, the former Tory MP who chaired the committee for 14 years before standing down at the last election.

But Dr Mike Galsworthy, Chairman of the European Movement - which is supporting the APPG - said the new group would bring in a “fresh new era of European engagement.”

It comes as Sir Keir attempts to pursue a “reset” with the EU, pledging to “make Brexit work” by renegotiating the deal agreed upon by Boris Johnson and the Tories.

Joe Meighan, public affairs manager at the European Movement warned the prime minister against running a “covert charm offensive with Europe”, saying it “risks any advancements being labelled as undemocratic”.

“Our exit from the EU and removal from its apparatus should give cause for deeper parliamentary scrutiny, not the opposite. If Starmer’s great reset is to be fair, equitable and democratic, it must be one routed through the House of Parliament and not Labour HQ”, he said.

Meanwhile, Lord Kirkhope told The Independent the new group is “crucial” following the decision to abolish the European Scrutiny Committee.

“It will allow us to assess policies as they evolve and apply a positive, pragmatic approach to our relationship with Europe.

“We’ve bilateral ties with many European countries, but what’s been lacking is a broader, strategic view of our relationship with the EU as a whole”, he said.

This new group is very welcome but it doesn't bode well for Labour's so-called reset that Starmer's first act in this direction on becoming PM was to abolish the European Scrutiny Committee.

I'm not a great one for taking opinion polls seriously, but every now and again one comes along that reinforces what I already sensed might be the view of a large number of people, and then I'll sit up and take notice.

Of course these things are just snapshots, it is the trends that matter, but if they allow the government to do the right thing, then who am I to argue.

This poll from IPSO from five days ago should be sending a powerful message to Chancellor Rachel Reeves. It found that two in five (40%) Britons say they support increasing spending on public services, even if it means that they personally pay more tax.

IPSO found that support for increased spending rises to 52% of those who voted Labour in 2019, as opposed to 35% of those who voted Conservative. There is also an age split, with 46% of over 55s wanting higher spending (20% prefer tax cuts) but among 18-34 years 34% wanting higher spending and 37% tax cuts.

When asked about specific issues, 6 in 10 (61%) of Britons support the next Chancellor increasing spending on the NHS, even if it means they personally pay more in taxes. This is followed by education (44%), policing (41%), and defence (40%). The public are most split on increasing their own personal taxes to pay for higher spending on green projects to reduce the impact of climate change (34% support higher spending even if that means higher personal taxes, 29% would prefer cutting taxes).

Labour however, have painted themselves into a corner. They have severely limited their options by promising not to raise income tax, VAT or national insurance on working people. There are also doubts about the workability of charging VAT on private education and accelerating the taxing of non-doms.

With a £22 billion budget gap and failing public services, Reeves really needs the extra revenue. The economy too, desperately needs capital investment in housing, transport, health, AI and many more areas if we are to compete with other countries and raise GDP. Such investment is key to levelling up the poorer parts of the UK.

Having a situation whereby average income per head is lower than most other Western nations is unsustainable. In his book 'This Time no mistakes' Will Hutton quotes John Burn-Murdoch of the Financial Times who has shown how skewed our economoy is towards London. He says that the UK capital is so disproprtionately rich that if it is not included in the figures the average income per head in the rest of the UK falls below that of the poorest US state, Mississippi.

Starmer and Reeves need to succeed where Boris Johnson, for all his rhetoric, failed. If they do not use this budget to set off on the road to tackling poverty in this country by investing in the economy then their project is doomed from the beginning.

If anybody was wondering how it is that we have a £22 billion black hole in he UK government finances. then look no further than here.

The Independent reports that Keir Starmer has come under pressure to publish the true costs of Brexit after a minister confirmed Britain has spent £24bn alone withdrawing from the EU – with a further £6.4bn still to pay. Treasury minister Tulip Siddiq replied to a parliamentary question to say that Britain has paid the EU £23.8bn as part of its “financial settlement” agreement.

Naturally this has created waves, even though I think we all suspected that this was the sort of ball park figure that Brexit had cost us:

Best for Britain chief executive Naomi Smith told The Independent: “Exiting the European Union not only cost the UK vast amounts of money, but economic growth, opportunities for young people, influence on the world stage, and much more.

“But this government has the opportunity to reverse that downwards trend, building on a strong start to bring us closer to the EU through policies like beneficial alignment and a reciprocal youth mobility scheme.”

Deputy chief executive of campaign group the European Movement, Emma Knaggs, told The Independent: “It’s encouraging to see more data being shared about the cost of the UK’s exit from the EU. However, we remain in the dark about the full extent of the impact of leaving the EU and its repercussions on areas such as the economy, the NHS, the cost of living and UK businesses, to name just a few. We need an independent, forward-looking inquiry on the UK’s relationship with Europe to identify those opportunities and rebuild those closer bonds.”

Despite this Labour are still sitting behind their red lines of not rejoining the single market or the customs union, a position that is doing irreparable damage to the UK economy and its future prospects. 

The Independent reports on a warning by a senior MP that ministers and AI developers are locked in an “arms race” with criminals and rogue states attempting to use the technology for harm.

They say that Chi Onwurah, who chairs the science, innovation and technology committee, has told the paper that the “creativity and focus of criminal enterprises on adopting technology is unimaginable”. 

The Irish Examiner reports on the view of the Lord Mayor of the City of London that the UK's departure from the European Union cost London's financial centre about 40,000 jobs, a far deeper impact from Brexit than previous estimates:

Michael Mainelli said Dublin had gained most, attracting 10,000 positions, while cities such as Milan, Paris and Amsterdam had also benefited from jobs migrating from London after Britain voted to quit the EU trading bloc in 2016.

"Brexit was a disaster," said Mainelli, the ceremonial head of London's City financial centre, which stretches over a square mile including the Bank of England, international banks and insurers. "We had 525,000 workers in 2016. My estimate is that we lost just short of 40,000."

The tally by Mainelli, who spent years charting the fortunes of Britain's financial centre before becoming Lord Mayor and has contact with hundreds of City firms, is far higher than the 7,000 jobs that consultants at EY calculated had left London for the European Union by 2022.

But he said the City of London was growing, including in fields beyond finance, with new jobs that compensated for the fall-out of Brexit. Worker numbers have swelled to 615,000 as insurers and data analysis sectors grow, he said.

Nonetheless, his estimate underscores the scale of the fall-out, as Britain seeks to rebuild bridges to continental Europe.

"The City voted 70-30 to remain. We did not want it," Mainelli said, adding that he had redoubled his efforts to "engage more" with Europe, making nine visits to countries in the region this year.

His push to bolster relations with the continent comes amid a wider economic slowdown in Britain, which has been riven by disagreement over its departure from the European Union.

Although some hoped that Brexit would give London the freedom to reduce immigration, ditch large amounts of EU regulation and bolster the economy, immigration rose, regulation proved hard to untangle and the economy slowed.

Keir Starmer, Britain's new prime minister, has sought to rebuild relations with continental Europe, damaged by years of fractious Brexit negotiations.

Starmer wants to remove some blocks to doing business with EU countries, including a mutual recognition agreement of professional qualifications, but has ruled out a return to the bloc's single market.

Mainelli said "there's a lot more we could do on visas" to help the City. "We're also working on bilateral trade deals with Germany," he said.

Long the jewel in the British industrial crown, the country's financial sector has also been in decline.

Economic output in the heart of Britain's financial sector, including banks and wealth funds, has fallen by more than 15% since late 2019, just before the UK formally left the EU.

Overall, financial services output in Britain has fallen by 1% since late 2019 — a stark contrast with France and Germany, where it has increased by 8%, and Ireland's 18% growth, national account data shows.

British financial services exports have been overtaken by other business services, such as law or advertising.

Britain's official budget forecaster said in March that its prediction Brexit would cause trade volumes to shrink by 15% was "broadly on track".

Most Britons think Brexit has been a failure so far, according to recent opinion polls, but proponents say Britain has greater freedom to pursue its own path outside the EU. They point to Germany's economic downturn and political turmoil in France as evidence of the bloc's shortcomings.

Surely, it is time for this new Labour government to start repairing the damage by rejoining the single market.

The Guardian reports that Angela Rayner and Rachel Reeves are at loggerheads over a major programme of social housebuilding, in the latest sign of cabinet tensions over this month’s budget.

The paper says that as housing secretary, Raynor has been pushing Reeves for billions of pounds more for affordable housing, which she argues will be needed to hit Labour’s target of building 1.5m new homes across five years. However, the Chancellor has made it clear that there will not be enough money available in this spending review for an immediate cash injection:

The standoff is the latest sign of the tensions across cabinet over both the budget and spending review, with several cabinet ministers yet to sign off on their individual departmental settlements.

Rayner is understood to have stressed to the chancellor that social housing should not just be seen as do-gooding but as a key part of the government’s growth agenda.

She told a panel during the Labour conference last month: “I actually think it’s a moral mission with the Labour government to recognise the problem and to build the social housing we need … But hopefully at the spending review, you’ll see that this government is really serious that we’re going to build those houses we desperately need.”

Treasury sources say, however, that they are not able to accommodate every department’s demands given the tight spending constraints.

...

Sources have told the Guardian that Rayner had asked for an immediate top-up to the affordable homes programme, a government scheme which allocates £11.5bn to local authorities and housing associations over five years.

The programme is due to expire in 2026, but sources in the housing industry said it was already running out and needed an immediate boost of up to £2bn. They pointed out that Michael Gove handed back nearly that amount to the Treasury last year after struggling to find projects to spend it on.

Kate Henderson, the chief executive of the National Housing Federation, said: “To deliver affordable and social housing at the levels needed, at the autumn budget we need … an urgent top-up in affordable housing funding, and commitment to a new multi-year affordable housing programme which prioritises funding for social rented homes.”

Polly Neate, the chief executive of Shelter, said: “This government was elected on a promise to deliver the biggest increase in social housing in a generation. The only way to do this is through serious investment and by recognising housing as fundamental to communities and growth and counting it as critical infrastructure.”

Government insiders said that while the chancellor had ruled out an immediate top-up to the programme, she had not made a decision on how large it should be after 2026.

Housing industry groups say that hitting the government’s annual housing targets would mean building 90,000 social-rent homes a year for the poorest households, at a cost to the government of about £11bn. However, lobbying groups admit they would be happy to settle for closer to £4bn a year – double the current allocation.

When I wrote about Labour's housing targets back in August I said that the real issue is affordability, something that ministers cannot rely on the private sector to enable. I added that if Labour are serious about providing homes where they are most needed then they will need to provide significant amounts of public subsidy and ensure that local councils and housing associations are sufficiently resourced to build the social housing that is required. They will also need to invest in infrastructure. This target cannot be met on the cheap.

IF they don't bite that bullet straight away then they may as well say goodbye to meeting their targets.

The Mirror reports that a major report from the Refugee Council has found Labour inherited an asylum system in 'meltdown' that had been brought to a 'near-standstill' due to Conservative mismanagement.

The report says that without Keir Starmer’s decision to scrap the Rwanda plan and kick-start asylum decision making, the backlog of people waiting for an initial judgement could have ballooned to over 177,000 by January - higher than in the pandemic:

According to the report’s analysis, 70% of those who crossed the channel in the year up to June would be expected to be recognised as refugees - yet 96% of those claims were outstanding when the election was called. The backlog is now projected to be closer to 118,000 under Labour - some 59,000 fewer cases than if no action had been taken. Researchers say this could generate savings of up to £240million in asylum support.

In total the report found that just over half of people - some 62,000 - whose asylum claims can now be processed may be recognised as refugees. One in 10 of those who were waiting for an initial decision at the end of June were Afghan nationals, and a third of the people came from either Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Eritrea or Syria – all countries whose nationals have a very high likelihood of being recognised as a refugee.

The Refugee Council warned that other “immediate challenges” Labour must now address to move from a “rescue” approach of the asylum system to “recovery and long term reform”. It warned that homelessness among refugees increased by 253% between July 2023 and March 2024 as a result of a push to clear the backlog.

And its report also raised concerns about a growing backlog of asylum appeals as a result of decision making being sped up. It also said safe routes to the UK must be reviewed and expanded as it warned that 2024 has already become the deadliest year for small boat crossings.

The report recommends Labour completely repeal the Illegal Migration Act, which became law last year(2023) and is blamed for the asylum system’s productivity sinking to its lowest point since the Covid pandemic. Mr Starmer’s government has already amended the law, which is helping to speed up decision making of asylum claims.

Despite this the Tories remain in denial. The current crisis in the UK asylum system is down to them and their thinly disguise small Englander policies, isn't it time they re-evaluated their approach?

Just when you thought the Labour freebie scandal had died a death, the Guardian reports that ministers have continued to declare free tickets to Taylor Swift, football matches and loans of clothing, according to the latest register of MPs’ interests, amid the controversy over Keir Starmer accepting hospitality.

The paper says that Peter Kyle, the science secretary, revealed that he accepted two free tickets to a Taylor Swift concert in August worth more than £500, courtesy of the Football Association:

Others to reveal hospitality include Ian Murray, the Scottish secretary, who accepted £320 of tickets to a Liverpool v Bournemouth football match in September thanks to Salmon Scotland, where he had a meeting with the chief executive of the industry body.

Lucy Powell, the leader of the House of Commons, took £570 of Davis Cup tennis tickets in September, in her capacity as MP for Manchester Central, where the match was played.

Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, also declared that she had accepted a free loan of clothing from a fashion PR firm called 223 Agency, which was below registrable value.

It is understood Nandy borrowed an outfit from UK designer Edeline Lee to signal her support as culture secretary for British fashion design, and that the outfit has since been returned.

The row over Starmer accepting more than £100,000 in free tickets and other gifts such as clothing while he was an MP has dogged the prime minister’s first few months in office. He attempted to draw a line under it by pledging to pay back £6,000 of tickets and gifts, including those to a Taylor Swift concert donated by her label Universal Music.

However, he has made it clear that his decision to pay back the value of some tickets did not apply to other ministers, and that it was a personal choice while new rules on ministerial acceptance of benefits are being drawn up.

Will it ever end?

Half of my social media timelines at the moment are questioning why Starmer going to a Taylor Swift concert is even a story. It's not news, they say, it is just tittle tattle. Well, yes it is, but in politics tittle tattle counts and if you are naive enough to put on a fully-justified police escort for a superstar performer, and then accept freebie tickets that enable you to meet her backstage then frankly, you shouldn't complain.

It is precisely because the opposition and their allies in the media are able to tie up the freebie misjudgement with the police escort that it is still a story. They are able to suggest that special treatment was given to Swift in exchange for personal favours. In fact the two are not likely to be related, but the fact Labour has left themselves open to the implication means that the story has legs and boy, is it running.

Even the Guardian, a paper of the centre-left that would normally take Starmer's side, is reporting it. They quote No.10 sources to record that Keir Starmer met Taylor Swift at one of her London concerts days after a decision was taken to grant her a “blue light” police escort.

They say that the prime minister and his family had a 10-minute meeting with the pop megastar and her mother, Andrea, backstage at Wembley on 20 August, with the conversation covering the Southport murders, which took place at a Swift-themed holiday club:

The Guardian has been told that there was no discussion of the police motorbike convoy that had been provided for Swift and her entourage, and which Downing Street has repeatedly insisted was an operational matter for Scotland Yard.

No 10 had initially declined to comment when asked if Starmer had met the billionaire pop star when he and his family were invited on 16 August to the Wembley gig by Universal Music, but the “brush-by” was confirmed after it was reported by the Sun.

It was also reported that Swift was given convoys to the stadium for five gigs from 15 August, despite initial police reservations, with her mother negotiating arrangements directly with former No 10 chief of staff Sue Gray.

Downing Street has denied that Starmer received the free tickets as a “thank you” for the singer getting a police escort to her concerts. “I completely reject that characterisation,” his spokesperson said. “It’s ultimately up to the police to take operational decisions in relation to these big events.”

Starmer declared the tickets, worth £2,800, to the final night of the Eras tour in London in line with the parliamentary rules, but later paid them back following weeks of criticism over accepting thousands of pounds worth of freebies.

No 10 has faced repeated questions over the decision to give Swift and her entourage a police convoy by the Special Escort Group (SEG), a specialist unit of the Metropolitan police usually reserved for the royal family and senior politicians.

Downing Street says the move, which came after the pop star pulled out of three planned concerts in Vienna when police foiled a terror plot, was an operational matter for police.

However, the police decision was reportedly changed after representations from Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, and Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, about the economic repercussions if the huge concerts were called off.

Starmer’s spokesperson did not deny that No 10 potentially had had conversations with Swift’s team, saying “conversation and dialogue” about such security matters was completely routine.

Among the donations Starmer repaid was £598 for two tickets to Swift’s Wembley concert five days earlier, paid for by the Football Association, which owns the stadium. He did not attend this concert, with the register of MPs’ interests saying these were “offered to and accepted by family members”.

Cooper also attended one of Swift’s Wembley concerts with her husband, the former Labour minister Ed Balls, who was offered tickets by the star’s record company.

The paper adds that some government insiders have acknowledged that the public is holding Labour ministers to a higher standard, after they won the election promising they would run the country in the service of working people, and be different from their predecessors.

That is certainly true and the sooner Labour acknowledge that and act accordingly they will have a chance to move the agenda on.

In Labour's mixed-up world the so-called closer co-operation between the Welsh Labour Government and their party colleagues in Westminster has not got off to a good start, at least when it comes to dentistry.

The BBC reports on comments by the Secretary of State for Wales that defy belief, namely her remarks to the Labour Party Conference that the "UK government will take inspiration from Wales on dentistry, where reforms have already unlocked almost 400,000 appointments in the last two years".

Meanwhile, a Welsh MP, Stephen Kinnock has been given the role of managing dentistry in England, to the extent that he tweeted on 14th August that NHS dentistry is broken. and he is working to provide 700,000 more urgent dental appointments, recruit new dentists and reform the dental contract. None of this will benefit his own constituents as they are already suffering under Welsh Labour.

Labour politicians have said Wales has created 400,000 appointments over the past two years, but the British Dental Association (BDA) said that did not take into account the needs of individual patients, while one patient said he had been suffering dental pain for years:

Matty Parry from Old Colwyn, Conwy county, said he had been pushed from one dentist to another while having dental pain for five years.

He is still trying to register for treatment but has been told by one dentist that could mean another two-and-a-half years of waiting.

"It's a shambles," he said.

"It’s horrendous how people can't get a dentist.

"They probably need to do more courses, they need to promote it more, to train people up."

He said paying for treatment was "unreal".

"I know people that have spent thousands of pounds on treatment, when really should it be that much?"

In fact, the latest available figures from the Welsh and UK governments show how dental treatment levels have recovered since Covid. England completed 85% of the average number of courses of treatment being done pre-Covid, but in Wales that figure was much lower, at 58%. The article continues:

Dr Russell Gidney, who runs a dental practice in Chepstow, Monmouthshire, and is a leading member of the BDA, said colleagues were abandoning their NHS contracts because of the targets they were being set, and the financial clawbacks they face if they do not treat enough patients.

He said it meant meeting targets were more important than giving people the treatment they need.

"The Welsh dental service is struggling to cope," he said.
~ "There are patient numbers being seen but, because practices are being pushed towards numbers of patients - although that statistic looks good - actually, what they're able to deliver on most patients, is suffering.

"It really is whitewashing the problems that are happening underneath."

On Wales being held up as an example to England, Dr Gidney said: "Fundamentally, I find it laughable.

"We've seen more clawback applied to practice since Covid.

"We see more practices hand back their contracts every year than we saw in several years pre-Covid.

"Dentists aren't happy because they can't take care of their patients.

"They can't make the business work as they want to, and fundamentally, where it carries on as it is, it is causing the patients to suffer as well."

Labour's record on dental treatment in Wales is appalling. thousands of patients are unable to access NHS care and the whole profession is struggling. If England is bad, then Wales is worse. Perhaps Ministers should look to their own record before spinning differently.

The Times reports that Reform UK has been trying to flog tours of parliament with an MP for a whopping £300 in a clear breach of House of Commons rules.

They say that a fundraising email was sent to some activists offering the tours for up to £300 as part of a drive to raise money despite there being strict rules around how MPs can use their access to parliament for financial gain:

The Times has been told an email to Reform supporters in one region was sent out in recent weeks advertising a Christmas party for supporters at a central London bar and nightclub. Tickets were sold as a fundraiser; however, there was an optional extra that advertised a “package” involving a tour of parliament with an MP.

A source said it was “a bit rich of Reform to have attacked Keir Starmer over freebies” given the attempt by a party organiser to “make money off their five MPs”.

Reform MPs are said to have been unaware of the arrangement until one of those who purchased the ticket got in touch with them. In a statement, Reform said the email was sent in error by a volunteer regional organiser. A party spokesman said: “This event was set up without our knowledge by the local branch who did not know the rules.

“Ticket holders are being offered a refund.”

Oops!

I was on holiday when the final vote by MPs excluded favourite, James Cleverly from the deciding members ballot for Tory leader so didn't have an opportunity to comment on it. The outcome means that whatever the final result the Conservatives are set to move even further to the right to the extent that they might as well just rename themselves as 'Reform' and invite Nigel Farage to take the reins instead.

One of the choices now is Robert Jenrick, whose supporters were selling baseball caps at Tory Conference emblazoned with the legend 'Bobby J'. I read one report in which a supporter commented that they called him 'BJ' for short. The remaining choice is Kemi Badenoch or Bad Enoc as I prefer to call her. Botb are figures on the right with, in my judgement, a poor record in government. It is difficult to see either of them enthusing the centre right voters they lost at the last election.

And then as if to put the cherry on the top of the madness, the Independent reports that Robert Jenrick has promised to make Jacob Rees-Mogg Tory party chairman if he wins the Conservative Party leadership election:

Mr Jenrick on Sunday said he would appoint the Boris Johnson loyalist despite him losing his seat in the July election.

“One of my first acts as leader would be to appoint him as chairman of the party so we can truly reform and democratise our party,” Mr Jenrick said.

“Together we will empower members and restore the respect that has been so sorely lacking in recent years,” he added.

You can see straight away that Bobbt J has the common touch. Let's hope he wins, because with him and Rees-Mogg helming the Tory Party the Liberal Democrats could well do even better next time.

Let's be clear about this, Starmer's government is in no way comparable to JFK's camelot, but that is where this obsession with the first 100 days of an administration originated and Labour MPs are keen to jump onto the bandwagon and get their spin out there in the hope of convincing people that things have not been so shambolic after all.

My MP in Swansea West has been no exception, posting on Facebook what I can only assume is an agreed script sent out to him and others by Labour spin-doctors. So let's look at the claims in more detail:

1. He says he has been busy raising vital questions about child poverty, the future of Port Talbot and the success of our universities with the Government. And yet he voted against lifting the two-child cap on child benefit, the much heralded deal on Tata steel in Port Talbot was basically identical to the one negotiated by the former Tory government and condemned as inadequate by Labour MPs, while the signals we are getting from Labour ministers is that there are no plans to lift the visa restrictions that have effectively crippled the finances of so many UK universities.

2. Locally, he says, he is holding regular surgeries, knocking on doors, and talking to families, businesses and charities about what they need to thrive. Well yes, but isn't that the job, and where are these surgeries being advertised? As far as I can see he hasn't yet got a website or a constituency office. They don't appear to have been advertised on his social media platforms either.

3. And so to the nitty gritty - Labour, he says, have launched the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation, to end exploitative zero-hours contracts and provide sick pay from day one. That is welcome. We await the passage of the bill into law.

4. He claims that Labour have set up Great British Energy, a publicly owned renewable energy company that will bring down bills. Well, no, they have mooted this development, and a bill is going through Parliament, which is good, but it is by no means a reality yet.

5. And when he says that the government have legislated to bring the UK's railways back into public ownership so we can drive up standards, the implication is that this is now law. In fact the bill is still at committee stage as far as I can see. So, not yet an achievement, but work in progress and, again, welcome when if finally materialises as legislation.

6. He says that the government has brought the Renters' Rights Bill to Parliament, which will end the disgraceful discrimination against households who have children or receive benefits. This is also welcome and I look forward to it becoming law.

7. Finally, the really big one; the claim that Labour have got the public finances back under control after discovering the Tories’ £22bn black hole. Well given that we haven't had a budget yet, I think this one has to go down as hyperbole. What Labour have in fact done is to save several billion pounds by axing the winter fuel allowance for millions of pensioners. The reputed £22 billion black hole is still there and if this Guardian article is right, the nee Chancellor of the Exchequer has locked herself away while she tries to square the many pledges on taxes she made in opposition with the demands of her party to invest in public services, while filling the financial void left by her predecessor.

The paper says that, amid the gathering turmoil and, some would say, lack of clear sense of direction, cabinet ministers have been itching to make announcements or least float ideas, but without knowing if they will be given money to do so, either in the budget or next spring’s spending review, it has not been possible:

The party promised not to raise taxes for working people and so ruled out increasing their income tax, VAT or national insurance. It also boldly pledged to spur new growth and create the fastest growing economy in the G7.

The promises did not end there. Since the election Starmer has said again and again that there will be no return to Tory austerity and no broad-based cuts to public services.

Now the time to begin to deliver growth and repair public services while not raising working peoples’ taxes is only 17 days away.

One former Tory cabinet minister put it this way: “They have said they will not go back to austerity and that they will rebuild services while not raising tax on working people, but they are going to have to find the money from somewhere.

“We are talking huge sums. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says they need to raise £25bn in taxes. But if they are going to achieve that and keep to their promises all the choices are going to be really difficult.

“They have made life much harder for themselves because they have ruled out putting up income tax, VAT or increasing working people’s national insurance. Between them that is about 75% of all revenue.”

He added: “They kind of muddled through in the run-up to the election saying it would all come from economic growth, but that was never really sustainable as you never can rely on growth.”

Meanwhile, Labour appear to have to put two of the most pressing problems facing the UK on the back burner. There are no plans to address the crisis in social care that is crippling much of the NHS, nor do they seem to be rushing to find ways to clean up our rivers and seas from the huge amount of sewage that has been pumped into them by the water companies.

And there is the chaos at the heart of 10 Downing Street, with Starmer's Chief of Staff sacked after ninety-plus days after a power struggle, not to mention the row over freebies that has shown voters that when it comes down to it, this Labour government are just as bad as the Tories in seeking to exploit the benefits of their position.

The first 100 days may well have amounted to a starting point but they are far from the nirvana being touted by Labour MPs. I will be generous and award them 4 out of 10.

I havent seen this in the Welsh media, but one national newspaper, which is normally keen to publish Welsh Tory press releases claims that the Welsh Government spent a dizzying £1.5 million on hospitality between 2022 and 2023, including £15,000 at a swanky New York restaurant.

They say that the Welsh Government used procurement cards to spend £1,494,599, 81% more than the £821,871 racked up the previous year. The official figures show bills included £7,949 and £15,933 at Zou Zou’s in Manhattan, where dishes include a lobster kebab at £39 ($51) a pop and fire-roasted lamb, costing £99 ($130).

Other expenditure included £5,158, which was spent at the exclusive Soho House in West Hollywood, a members-only club which is billed as a retreat for “creative thinkers”. Menus at the club feature items such as a £42 truffle pizza. While it is unclear what the specific expenditure actually covered, transactions were listed under “exhibitions and events”.

Extra spending included £2,912 on products from GoPro, which is known for its extreme sports cameras, plus a £625 limousine service in Canada, and £178 at a Texan BBQ restaurant. A total exceeding £2,000 was spent on a French catering firm in April, while £256 went towards an alcohol retailer in the US.

Irrespective of the source of this article, the official government spokesperson neither denies the facts nor offers an explanation for them.

Could Labour have handled the donations and gift scandal any worse? I don't think they could. Their media management of this ongoing crisis is the spin doctor equivalent of standing in a hole and digging furiously.

Far be it from me to tell them what they should have done, but if they had got all of the facts out in the open on day one, apologised and changed the rules in double quick time so that it couldnt happen again, it is possible that the whole affair would have fizzled out by now and ministers could be concentrating on their agenda instead of constantly explaining themselves in an effort to move on. 

I am currently reading James O'Brien's book 'How they broke Britain' in which he recounts how David Cameron was reported to have met with Rupert Murdoch's executives on 26 separate occasions during his first 15 months in office, while Gordon Brown and Tony Blair also worked assidiously to woo the media magnate.

Despite this chumminess, Cameron couldn't avoid setting up the Leveson Inquiry following the revelation that missing school girl, Milly Dowler's voicemail had been hacked by journalists working for the News of the World.