John Redwood MP

Many politicians think the way to win elections is to offer more and more public service and public spending. They seek to build a coalition of people who will benefit from the enlarged and new programmes they offer. If you look, however, at winning campaigns it is often the tax cut that proves more popular. More people want to take responsibility for their own lives, and wish to look after themselves and their families out of their own incomes.

The Conservative governments of the 1980s drove income tax rates down and abolished whole taxes in successive  budgets. This was one of the main props to their election winning run.

Labour discovered this in the 1990s, and won office in 1997 on the firm pledge to keep the lower tax rates that the Conservatives had introduced.  They kept their word on Income tax rates until the financial crash. They put the rates up at the end which went alongside the 0ther problems they had created to lead to their defeat.

George Osborne promised a tax cut prior to the 2010 election, which proved popular. In office the Coalition was only able to agree on cutting the Income Tax threshold. This was sufficiently popular for both coalition parties to want to claim credit for it.

In the 2017 election Mr Corbyn seemed to offer to repay all the debts of former students who took out student loans. This appeared to be an offer of a £40,000-£50,000 gift  for some people. It proved very popular and drove a surge in the younger vote for Labour. We subsequently learned from Mr Corbyn that he did not mean to offer to repay all these debts, though he only clarified this after the vote.

Mr Hammond began the 2017 election by appearing to hint that higher taxes might be needed. The rest of the Conservative leadership had to deny this. Fears of tax hits to the self employed damaged Conservative popularity though these plans were rightly dropped. These followed the tax attacks on Buy to Let Investment and on home ownership through higher Stamp Duties which were also unpopular.

One of the main reasons Mr Trump did well in the US election was the promise of major tax cuts for individuals and businesses.

I look forward to Conservatives offering and delivering tax cuts in the future. The sooner the we stop sending  large sums to the EU the better, as that will increase our  budget flexibility on both spending and taxation. In the meantime we should be cutting the tax rates where to do so will increase the revenue.

In a long speech the French President sought to wrestle the EU agenda his way at the moment of maximum weakness for Germany following her election.

His speech was very like that of the President of the EU Commission. He seeks an EU budget, Finance Minister and much more integration. He wants a stronger EU foreign policy backed by EU forces. The speech was well received in Brussels.

The problem he still faces is this vision will only happen on German terms. Mrs Merkel is weakened by her election losses. If she survives as head of a wobbly three party coalition there  will be  severe limits on her room to move the German position in the direction France wants. Like Mr Macron she is happy to move to political union. Unlike Mr Macron she will need to concentrate on common economic policies as a discipline on the Eurozone. She will not be able to offer a proper transfer union channelling German money to the poorer EU regions on a bigger scale. She will not want a proper common budget, as Germany would be the main paymaster of that.

The traditional German position is they want more European control of national budgets and more  EU pressures for structural reform in the deficit countries. That  is very much the view of the Free Democrats that Mrs Merkel now needs as supporters. She will also have to trim over migrant numbers, where her old coalition partners the CSU have strong views and were badly bruised by her policies in the election.

So Mr Macron will get more  EU power but not more EU money. Money  after  all is going to be short  assuming the UK leaves without paying the future  bills. Meanwhile Mrs Merkel has to get used to having just 200 MPs in her party in a Parliament of 709.  Even with the CSU who are now unhappy allies, she only has 246. Germany will be weaker, but that does make Germany more compliant to France, given the direction France wants to go in. Without the UK helping pay the bills Germany will become more of a budget hawk. The rest of the EU will soon run out of German money to spend, which will limit their integrationist ambitions a bit.

The EU’s comment yesterday that it will take a miracle to get early trade talks with the UK is not an accurate statement of the position. It would apparently take the UK offering them sheds loads of money to get trade talks going. I am glad the UK is not doing so. We should pay them nothing for talks, as they need trade talks more than we do. We should pay them nothing for a Free Trade deal, as that would be against the spirit and probably against the rules of the WTO.  If they want each side to have to pay to trade, then WTO tariffs is the cheapest and easiest way of paying for trade, and would be legal.  I remain to be persuaded that we owe them anything other than our regular contributions.

As the EU is clearly now overplaying their weak hand, the UK needs to show it is serious about gong for No Deal.  That would also be the best way to get them to talk about trade, when they realise we are prepared to put tariffs up against their food exports.

Today I invite all those who think No Deal would be bad to write in with specific problems they think will arise. I will then respond with how we coukd fix any that might be an issue.

Some say the planes will not be able to fly because there will be no Air Se rvices Agreement in place. Work is underway to ensure the reciprocal landing rights UK and EU carriers already   enjoy are continued.

Some say there will be queues of lorries at Dover carrying all our imports that will cause customs chaos. Work is underway to have registered traders filing details of consignments electronically so lorries can proceed quickly and tariffs can levied electronically. We are also building a  huge  lorry park to deal with French strike days which can be used if anything else goes wrong.

Most just say there will be a cliff edge without having a clue why. There is no cliff. The day after we leave French farmers and German car makers will still be sending us their exports.In return we will still be selling things on the continent. The cliff edge has all the potency of the Millennium Bug.

The balance of payments figures for the second quarter sum up the UK problem on the balance of payments. The deficit widened by £1.9bn from additional sums the government sent abroad, and from  a £1.4bn deterioration in the net figure for interest and dividends. As we sell more and more of our assets to overseas buyers so more rewards will be sent out to foreign investors.  On trade account we saw a £2,4bn improvement, with a £2.3bn improvement in the export of goods.

Inward investment remains very strong, at a net £11.7bn. This means we should expect further deterioration in the flows of interest and  dividends in the years ahead. The UK government could improve the  balance of payments by simply refusing to send the EU any more money after March 2019, which would be great news.

Spare us the false argument that the Bank has been independent for the last 20 years, and spare us the idea that it has done well over that period.

Gordon Brown’s Treasury clearly influenced the Bank’s approach to interest rates, and on one occasion set it a new inflation target to remind it who was boss. Brown also took powers away from the Bank over banking regulation, making its job of controlling the money supply  and credit more difficult. The background to the banking crash is a turf war between the Bank and the financial regulator.

George Osborne chose the Governor he wanted, who turned out to share Mr Osborne’s view of what would happen were the UK to vote for Leave. The Bank joined the Treasury in making wildly inaccurate forecasts of the short term economic impact of a Leave  vote.

The Bank made two major policy errors. In 2005-7 it failed to limit an excessive build up of credit and money despite warnings from Opposition parties and many commentators. Worse still in 2007-8 it decided to remove too much liquidity and keep rates too high, triggering runs on banks and the collapse of several financial institutions.

It has shown a very unsure touch pre and post the Referendum vote, and is today tightening credit prematurely.

The mistakes the Bank made were significant and were criticised by some commentators at the time.