Remain MPs over the last few years have endlessly warned us that were the UK to end up with a 10% tariff on cars into the EU it would mean  job losses and trouble for a crucial industry. They ignored the possibility that had we ended up with a tariff there might have been some compensatory movement in the currency, and failed to rejoice when an Agreement was reached for zero tariffs anyway. Rules of origin mean that the industry will make and supply more components in  the UK to comply, which is a force to strengthen the industry.

At the same time these Remain MPs were usually demanding much faster progress to net zero carbon, busily condemning diesel and petrol cars as one of the main causes of the climate threat they highlighted. They saw no obvious contradiction or hypocrisy in these two positions. They failed to note that the UK had been especially successful at attracting substantial investment allied to  UK development of diesel engines for  cars and enjoyed a strong position in diesel engine manufacture. They gave no credit to the industry for cleaning up the diesel exhaust so there was practically no particulates passing.  The policy of zero tolerance of diesel cars will mean the closure of all those factories and the loss of all those jobs, far more than they said were at risk from a 10% tariff. The industry itself lobbied strenuously for tariff free trade in diesel and petrol cars, but did not lobby against the banning of exactly the same vehicles a few years later. The likelihood of a ban of course means a major fall in diesel car sales in the meantime, as people seek to avoid the possible fall in values when new ones are banned and as governments made clear their dislike of such vehicles.

It would be interesting to hear from all those who spoke up for the industry what they think will happen as we move to complete bans on  diesel and petrol vehicles. Making an all electric battery car is a  very different process from building an internal combustion engine vehicle. Around a third of the value lies with the battery. The UK needs to rush to catch up on battery production. Where it has a strong position in diesel technology and capacity it has  no such current strength in batteries. It will need to work with our present motor manufacturers over their designs for popular electric cars, and how the parts, batteries and assemblies can be made in  the UK.  I wish the government and industry success.

All we can be sure about is there will be many closures and job losses in diesel and petrol car and component manufacture . There will be a commercial and country scramble to design and produce replacements to the electric standard. The government would  be wise to relax its rules on hybrids, to allow that technology to act as a bridge and reassurance to vehicle buyers. I have no financial  interests in diesels, but do run a  diesel car because I like its range, convenience  and fuel economy. I worry a lot about the costs to jobs and businesses of banning all petrol and diesel cars.

Amidst the welter of new Executive Orders and statements of intent coming from the White House, there are several aiming to make the USA a global leader in the battle against fossil fuels. President Biden is a carbon warrior. He is cancelling a new oil pipeline, suspending new licences to drill in the Artic, committing the USA to net zero carbon in power generation as early as 2035, and to complete net zero carbon dioxide output by 2050. He plans to double offshore wind power, promote electric vehicles, and persuade and regulate the oil and gas industry into a major transformation away from their principal business activities. It is a major shift from President Trump’s policy of making the USA energy self sufficient, fostering a large expansion of the domestic oil and gas industries and aiming at re industrialisation based on a plentiful supply of relatively cheap local fuel. .

The statements so far are short on the detail of how such a huge transformation will be carried through and paid for. If the country is successful in talking people out of their diesel and petrol cars into electric ones they will need a large expansion of domestic electricity output at the same time as they are closing down all the fossil fuel power stations. There will be a need for substantial investment in new power cables, switching, transforming and relaying to each house. Each home will need improved capacity cables and supply to allow for the heavy demands of recharging electric vehicles. The grid will need access to considerable extra reserves of generating capacity to handle much higher peak demand levels. As much of the additional electricity capacity will be wind and solar there will also need to be substantial back up generators to avoid black outs when the natural power sources fail or go slow. Industrial USA will face Chinese competition which still has access to huge supplies of fossil fuel generated power, as China continues to add to her coal and gas stations. Will the USA be able to compete on price and on reliability of supply in this new world? Will the USA develop massive storage batteries or pump storage schemes to handle variable load power?

It will be interesting to see how far President Biden goes in introducing Federal capital and subsidy to bring about this new power world, and how much he seeks to do it by regulation and requirements on  the network suppliers and power generators. He will need plans to make sure the USA does not run out of electricity when undertaking its electrical revolution, to make sure the electricity is affordable, and to ensure that they can arrange  the supply to cater for peaks in demand as more Americans come to depend on electricity for their transport as well as for their space heating and much else.

The Green revolution remains a top down revolution on both sides of the Atlantic. We still await the iconic affordable cars, space heaters and other crucial products to  bring this revolution into most people’s homes. Meanwhile governments like the new US one wrestle with how far they should go with laws, bans and subsidies to try to depose King carbon. It looks as if it is going to take a lot of  US law and state spending to bring  about this democrat vision in a country where many are committed to their vehicles.

I have always stressed when saying we can afford to borrow to offset the damage done by anti pandemic policies to the economy that we should not waste money or undertake spending the private sector can cover as it did pre pandemic.

The Business Department budget shows that it should be possible to reduce future outgoings whilst still doing a good job for the UK economy and business sector.

The Business department has a massive £175 bn of accumulated liabilities. Many of these are possible future payments to close down nuclear power plants and to subsidise wind and solar power. The Accounts  may understate the possible outturn on contract for differences power costs, which are  currently priced at £89.6bn by the Department compared to the more modest  £16.5bn liability on the balance sheet.

All this needs managing to get value for money and to control outgoings.

1. Safety should of course be an absolute  override, but it would repay study to examine the pace of the nuclear closure programme and the speed and incidence of remedial and recovery work               thereafter. They currently assume 7 stations close 2023-30.

2.The Smart meter programme is costing a massive £20.1bn and is very unpopular with many users. Could this be rephased?

3. International contributions to climate change projects are in at £11.6bn. So far the public sector has contributed more than the private. Maybe it is  time to demand greater leverage from the private sector? Surely emerging countries would prefer profitable projects?

4. £85.3bn of accumulated business support for CV 1 9  was  necessary spending. As there are £69.1bn  of loans, what is being assumed about repayment schedules once we have a proper economic recovery post vaccination? It is important the government makes sensible phased arrangements for recovery or for the transfer of these loans to banking sector.

5. CFD payments for renewable power . It is time for a value for money review of options as this is becoming a large contingent liability, particularly for new nuclear.

The Business Department budget is a reminder of just what a complicated nexus of subsidies, regulations and interventions there are  now are to keep the lights on and the factories turning.

I am receiving a  number of enquiries about why someone has not yet been vaccinated, along with examples of others of a similar age who have.

The local health service is well advanced with its vaccination programme and thinks it will hit the government targets. GPs say they will be sending out invitations to receive the vaccine to all those entitled, but there will of course be some who are vaccinated sooner and some later within the timetable set out given the large numbers involved. The aim of the local NHS is to use all the vaccine made available each day with stated appointments for those in the priority categories . I think it best that we let the NHS get on with it, as too many enquiries or complaints will add pressure when they need to put all their efforts into this large programme of  vaccination.

The first four categories currently being invited in order are:

The EU has failed to approve the Astra Zeneca vaccine and have said they need to take more time to check  it out. Now they are also saying that they want more of it delivered than the company can currently produce. That is a matter to be sorted out between the EU and the company. The EU then threatens to interrupt exports contracted by customers outside the EU as punishment for difficulties in supplying sufficient vaccine under another contract.

Supporters of  the EU are always telling us they uphold the legal and international order. This looks like the opposite.

The EU are also making life difficult for business in GB, Northern Ireland and the Republic by their interpretation of rules and the Protocol.It is high time the U.K. legislated to restore the integrity of the U.K. single market. No goods going to and from GB and Northern Ireland should face any additional impediments compared to transit of goods within GB. Any goods certified to travel onto the Republic from Northern Ireland can be treated in accordance with EU import requirements by agreement between the EU and U.K. or by the EU at their border.