I am on the Nick Ferrari show on LBC Radio this morning at about 7.50 (UPDATE: Now 8.50 due to technical problems their end) discussing the prospects for the UK economy now that the OECD have forecast no growth at all for us in 2023. That leaves us the anticipated worst performer in that year in the G20, excepting Russia.
I will leave the politics of this aside, I suspect, although I cannot help but take some pleasure if this stops the ridiculous claims Johnson makes about his economic track record. Instead I will concentrate on why we are in this position. There are obvious points to make.
The first is that this is down to Brexit above all else. As this week's data on regional growth in the UK from the ONS has shown, every part of the country has now seen a decline in GDP compared to 2019 excepting London (almost inevitably) and Northern Ireland, which can only be explained by it remaining inside the single market. We have opted for last place by leaving the EU.
But we have also opted for that place for other reasons. The refusal of Sunak to act in March did not help.
Nor did the fact that when action came it made no attempt to tackle the inflation we have and was instead designed to provide as many people as possible with the means to make payment of the extortionate prices being charged by energy companies, with the focus of the package as a result being on supporting energy companies rather than people.
That we have not cut taxes on fuel and energy to curtail the inflation we face, unlike other countries, is another cause of our predicament. People and small businesses are being crushed as a result.
And then there is, of course, the fact that our central bank is ahead of many in increasing interest rates to crush the remaining lifeblood out of the economy as fast as it can.
As if all this is not enough to explain our predicament, the fact that in the midst of this crisis the reaction of the government is to try to cut the number of civil servants by 20%, meaning that full scale austerity that will crush the size of the economy is planned is another issue to take into account.
Finally, there is one other factor, which is that literally no one in the UK, or beyond it, has any remaining confidence in our government, meaning that anyone with any sense will put their investment plans on hold, such is the shambolic situation that we now face. This too will crush economic activity.
Put all this together and I have more than enough to fill a three to four minute (at best) radio interview in which I have the chance to present the harsh economic reality that the Tories have created.
What I can't guarantee is to get through all that. But it needs to be said.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
It tells you how much the country has sacrificed to keep Johnson.
I hope it goes well.
How did you think it went on the Moral Maze? Did you get a word in?
It’s on BBC Sounds….I think it went as well as this programme can, and given the quality of the questions I was asked
I listen to Nick Ferrari to try to understand the pro – Brexit , right wing outlook. Delighted that you will be challenging the unfounded contentment .
Brexit was my first point, as you noticed…
It is interesting that in France electricity increases are limited to 4% and gas to 13% (I think) – and even with that the French are still disgruntled with President Macron !
For the record, I made all those points
Too short and I wish there had been some calls but great to hear some clear well informed criticism of the government on this show!
Thanks
I just went for it…
Nick Ferrari tried to talk over you, unsurprisingly, but he was obviously forced to bow down to your superior knowledge! Well done for putting your points across in a coherent way! Brexit seems to be being talked about more now, in relation to our country’s current financial problems! Good, it needs to be, Brexit is an unmitigated disaster! Thanks
When Nick tried to intervene I kept talking, refusing him the opprtunity
It was deliberate
If you want an intervention you drop your voice at the end of a sentence
If you don’t want one, you don’t, and make clear there will be no breath take as a result. It usually works
“ Nor did the fact that when action came it made no attempt to tackle the inflation we have and was instead designed to provide as many people as possible with the means to make payment of the extortionate prices being charged by energy companies, with the focus of the package as a result being on supporting energy companies rather than people.
That we have not cut taxes on fuel and energy to curtail the inflation we face, unlike other countries, is another cause of our predicament. People and small businesses are being crushed as a result.”
If you are putting forward cutting fuel/energy taxes as an alternative to subsidising consumers, I can see the benefit in reducing inflation rather than supporting it (and concomitant effects), and in spreading the benefit to supporting SMEs as well as householders. But I don’t see how it affects profiteering energy companies. They’ll make the same profit – amount passed on to government goes down by exactly the same as the revenue from the consumer goes down. Or am I missing something?
The attack on profiteering emergy companies has to be international
And as yet we also do not know enough about a windfall tax
I listened to the broadcast this morning and found it very refreshing.
We seem to be living in a parallel universe compared to everyone else and one of the main causes of our economic woes is effectively banned from the airwaves.
Brexit is an unmitigated disaster but, as the government has politically weaponised it, we are unable to have an in-depth debate about it.
Thanks
The human biosphere is being driven towards catastrophe by the burning of fossil fuels. Most governments appear to provide perverse incentives.
UK standing charges for gas and electricity ensure that the poorest pay the highest average rates PER UNIT CONSUMED while extravagant users can pay the lowest.
Polly Toynbee proposed very low rates for a minimum that ‘should be enough to just about manage frugally in a small home’ coupled with tariffs rising ‘on a steep gradient for all extra energy used, so big properties and heavy users pay higher and higher rates the more they use’. ‘The incentive for everyone would be to cut back as much as they could, so high-earners who never bothered about it before would find energy extravagance exorbitant. They too would soon be turning off lights and devices on standby, using less water (energy intensive) and wearing more vests and jumpers.’
Professor Katharine Hayhoe, who has been a lead author on US national climate assessments has warned ‘that if we continue emitting greenhouse gases no adaptation will be possible.
“People do not understand the magnitude of what is going on,”
she said. “This will be greater than anything we have ever seen in the past. This will be unprecedented. Every living thing will be affected.”
“If we continue with business-as-usual greenhouse gas emissions, there is no adaptation that is possible. You just can’t,” she said, in an interview with the Guardian.
The whole of modern life was at stake, she added. “Human civilisation is based on the assumption of a stable climate,” she said. “But we are moving far beyond the stable range.”
“The reality is that we will not have anything left that we value, if we do not address the climate crisis.”
“There’s an elephant standing on your foot.”
“Somebody help me! I’m in pain. My foot.”
“Yes, an elephant’s standing on it. A really big white one.”
“WON’T SOMEBODY PLEASE HELP ME??!! What’s happening to me?”
“That would be the elephant. On your foot.”