Post Brexit Autumn Statement 2016

[davieG]

What are you expecting?

What would you like to see?

 

Quote

 

What will Phillip Hammond reveal about Theresa May's Brexit plans?

Mark MardellPresenter, The World This Weekend

8 hours ago

 

From the sectionUK Politics

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES

Image captionThe chancellor's first Autumn Statement may reveal the prime minister's real Brexit strategy

You may not have noticed it yet, but next week's Autumn Statement will be a big test of the prime minister's seriousness.

Theresa May is making an extraordinary claim - to be the Western leader who gets the zeitgeist, who has the answers others are too timid to grasp, without being so headstrong that she threatens the whole system of world capitalism.

The overarching question about the chancellor's first major economic pronouncement will be "What does it say about Brexit?".

This is entirely right and proper. Phillip Hammond wouldn't be in charge of the UK economy without that vote - George Osborne would still be in post.

The direction Mr Hammond takes will depend on whether he thinks Britain is more likely to boom or bust outside the European Union.

In some quarters, he is already castigated for not sticking to a "happy clappy" script.

Sensible people agree Brexit is an economic leap in the dark, destination unknown. But to some, acknowledging this is akin to heresy.

Our leap, they insist, will be on to a rainbow from where we will slide gently to a pot of gold.

If Mr Hammond's economic analysis suggests it might be best to brace for a bumpy landing on the rocks below - just in case - some will regard that as defeatist whingeing.

Image copyrightREUTERS

Image captionNissan said the government had offered "support and assurances" over its post-Brexit future

We need to look out for growth and tax forecasts and measures to buttress a faltering economy, but tone and presentation will be important too.

The shock absorbers he does - or does not - put in place will tell us something about this government's true perception of Brexit, but its ambitions to reshape the British economy are far more significant.

It should tell us more about the intention and beliefs of the second most intriguing politician in the world - Mrs May. I would not have dreamed of writing that a few months ago, but as she herself said recently, we live in "a world transformed".

Of course what she does as prime minister at a critical time for our country is important, but it is much more than that.

She appears to be putting herself forward as the first leader in the world who will respond to a wave of populist discontent she neither encouraged nor summoned.

She makes clear her job is to ameliorate a mood that is sweeping the West. Her mission is nothing less than saving globalisation and free trade from themselves.

Image copyright@NIGEL_FARAGE

Image captionDo President-elect Trump and Nigel Farage both represent the "left behinds"?

We are familiar with the terms "centre right" or "centre left". She seems to want "centre populism". This may of course turn out to be traditional conservatism reheated in the rhetoric de jour, or it might be a wholehearted embrace of the radical ideas of the new hard right.

Last week I wrote about the similarities between Donald Trump's victory and Brexit. There are many differences between the leader of the UK and the next leader of the US but one in particular is critical.

Mr Trump not only skilfully surfed the wave of populism, he summoned the waters, encouraged the swell and used its gathering force to propel himself into power.

Here, by contrast, Mrs May was a mere bystander as the flood smashed the existing political order to matchsticks, the would-be surfers Boris Johnson and Michael Gove were spectacularly wiped out by the waves and David Cameron and Mr Osborne turned into so much flotsam and jetsam.

She was picked up and swept along in the tumult and deposited, almost accidently, in a high place, dryish and in charge.

Jump media player

Media player help

Out of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.

Media captionTheresa May: "A year ago few of us would have predicted the events ahead"

Mrs May could have been briskly business-like and insisted the only instruction from the referendum was the simple one on the ballot paper - to leave the EU. "Brexit means Brexit" to coin a phrase.

But Mrs May agrees with the academics and journalists who say it means far more, that voters were expressing a wider mood of discontent. In her recent speech to the Lord Mayor's banquet she repeated the central tenets of her party conference speech.

Brexit was a message about immigration and anger at a rich elite, some of whom ignore the rules others must obey.

But above all, she said, politicians and business people had to accept that "globalisation in its current form has left too many people behind".

And "we can do much more to ensure the prosperity [globalisation and free trade] provide is shared by all".

Read this out of context and you might guess she is attempting to out-Corbyn Jeremy.

Repeating "prosperity shared by all" twice in her speech might lead you to believe that "Red Phil" will be ordered to use the Autumn Statement to introduce a wealth tax of 90% on incomes of more than £200,000 and big corporate profits, and use the proceeds to treble the minimum wage, quadruple pensions and add a big fat nought to all benefits.

This is probably not Mrs May's way of "sharing prosperity". So what will she do?

Mr Trump wants to bring back jobs by introducing tariffs.

That's not Mrs May's way either. Indeed, she wants to be "the strongest global advocate for free markets and free trade".

So what could bring "the left behinds" (TLBs) right up front? Her answer? A new industrial strategy. The test of Mrs May's seriousness will be if this is the centrepiece of the Autumn Statement.

Jump media player

Media player help

Out of media player. Press enter to return or tab to continue.

Media captionAutumn Statement: The view from Scunthorpe

The shimmering outlines of what an industrial strategy might be are just about visible - "backing up the strengths" of great universities, dynamic businesses, creating "conditions where winners can emerge" and "developing untapped potential".

It's still rather hazy. To convince, Mr Hammond has to come up with spending promises and tax incentives to make this feel like new policy which will substantially change lives.

There are some signs "the left behinds" may lose out again to a newer group which has caught the PM's eye - the so-called "Just about managing", or Jams. The proposed help for them seems to be more in the nature of headline-grabbing gimmicks than a real change in policy.

If this is all talk, Mrs May is playing a dangerous game with the public mood.

She must know she does not have much leeway. Because the President-elect was so brutally frank about his extreme prescriptions on the road to power, he can afford to tone it down a bit now. Donnie Darkmouth can, to an extent, morph into Temperate Trump.

Image copyrightGETTY IMAGES

But Mrs May did not originally champion or encourage the people who put her in power.

She is calculating what they want, not expressing a shared fury, which means she risks sounding too shrill for those who do not share her prescription, while not doing enough to meet TLB or Jam concerns.

There is a danger too in falling in love with what is fast becoming an overwhelming narrative.

Whilst "the left behinds" is a useful catch-all, I prefer the idea of "the disconnect". Politicians will not be serving the national interest if they get the idea that courting former industrial workers undergoing a crisis of identity is all that matters.

This government has only revealed itself in fits and starts: long on talk, short on policy.

Next week we might see if it will put our money where its mouth is.

 

 

[SMX11]

What I want:

Hopefully no further tax complications and gimmicky policies of his predecessor. No stupid infrastructure spending. Closure of some less important government departments coupled with repealing some stupid taxes.

 

What we will get:

 

No significant cuts to government spending. A nominal cut/freeze in fuel duty and/or airport duty and announcements of some white elephant infrastructure spending which will enthuse Keynesians.

[Barky]

Infrastructure spending (though not on white elephants) is the sensible thing to do because it's both necessary and good for the economy, so I expect a lot of rhetoric to that effect but sadly not much in terms of actual shovels in the ground, much like his predecessor. 

 

Other than that that I don't think he'll want to rock the boat much given how the impact of brexit hangs in the balance. 

[Sharpe's Fox]

Would be madness not to borrow to increase infrastructure spending with rates as low as they are. Will never happen with the Tories obsession with running the economy like a twentysomethings family household, though.

[SMX11]

Rates are artificially low and the governments record recent record on projects is appalling. In theory yes it can be good but in practice decisions end up being more political than based on cost benefit analysis.

 

HS2 and Hinkley Point are two prime examples.

[Webbo]

I think HS2 is a good idea and if you're going to borrow it's exactly the type of thing you should borrow for. Whether the money could be better spent on other projects I don't know though.

[Barky]

21 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I think HS2 is a good idea and if you're going to borrow it's exactly the type of thing you should borrow for. Whether the money could be better spent on other projects I don't know though.

The idea is fine, it's just the cost. I think it could definitely be better spent on other projects. The government are saying it's going to cost £55bn, so realistically it'll probably be more like £60bn. New motorway costs about £30m per mile, so you could have 2,000 miles of new motorway for the same price. Dual carriageways cost about half the cost of motorway, so you could have 4,000 miles of dual carriageway, that's enough to link and ring road every large town and city in the UK with new dual carriageway. Imagine the benefits of that against the benefits of a single rail line from London to Manchester.

 

Hinkley Point C isn't quite so bad, it's still expensive but it will prevent the lights from going out, and there aren't many cheaper options out there really.

[Webbo]

We already have a good motorway network and cars are supposed to be bad for the environment. Would there be enough parking spaces in London for all the extra commuters from Manchester anyway?

 

The way I see it is once the track goes through pristine countryside land on either side will stop being green belt and become earmarked for development , making land available for housing and industry.

[Barky]

I think the road network is pretty poor myself, certainly if the amount of time I seem to spend sat in gridlock traffic is anything to go by.

 

Environmentalists are against expanding the road network, but cars are getting cleaner by the year and it won't be long before most of them are electric. Few people are going to give up the practicality and convenience of their own car anytime soon. Clean, possibly semi self-driving cars are the future of daily travel, we should be planning for it now.

 

I wouldn't expect the number of commuters from Manchester to London to increase much. I doubt it'll increase much with HS2 either, and I'm not sure why we should want it to. I'd rather see economic development all around the country rather than it all being centred in London. A large expansion in the road network would do wonders for the economy of places like Leicester and the many other areas of the country that would see no direct benefit whatsoever from hs2.

 

Even if you're set on trains, spreading the hs2 money on smaller rail projects all around the country will help far more people than hs2. I'm not even sure that many people will ever use hs2. It'll cost a fortune for tickets and most people probably won't be prepared to shell out the extra to get from Manchester to London about 20 minutes faster, especially not when it would still be slower than driving when you take into account getting to and from stations.

[davieG]

It looks like Hs2 is going to be at the expense of the Great Western and the London to Leeds electrification which both are being delayed quite significantly.

 

Perhaps the Hs2 should be a rail freight highway with quick load and unload containers at various distribution points.

[Webbo]

Surely one of the points of HS2 is to expand the commuter belt for London, taking some of the pressure off the S. East and moving well paid people further north?

[Sharpe's Fox]

Trouble with extending the road network is that you aren't solving the problem of congestion.. You might take cars off other congested parts of the network but most of the users will be induced traffic that are only using it because the road is there. We need to make better use of the roads we have rather than continuous expansion by getting people out of sole occupancy vehicles and freight off the road and onto rail or water.

[Barky]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Surely one of the points of HS2 is to expand the commuter belt for London, taking some of the pressure off the S. East and moving well paid people further north?

 

Provided ticket prices aren't prohibitive, which they might be given the cost to build, it should help a few well paid Londoners move further out and give marginally quicker access to London jobs for the few people who live close to the stations. It might also promote Manchester and Birmingham as places to do business because company representatives could get between the places more quickly. The build itself will provide many construction jobs and there will be ongoing jobs for operatives. I'm not saying it's totally useless, but for £60bn I think we should be looking to benefit as many people as possible rather than a minority who will benefit from hs2.

[Barky]

6 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Trouble with extending the road network is that you aren't solving the problem of congestion.. You might take cars off other congested parts of the network but most of the users will be induced traffic that are only using it because the road is there. We need to make better use of the roads we have rather than continuous expansion by getting people out of sole occupancy vehicles and freight off the road and onto rail or water.

But this idea of promoting other forms of transport has been around for a couple of decades now and been used as an excuse for not improving the road network for just as long. Meanwhile trains are still overcrowded, buses are still crap and car use hasn't fallen. Cars are just too practical and too convenient, people don't want to give them up. 

 

With regards to congestion don't forget the scale of the possible expansion we're talking about. We could build 4,000 miles of dual carriageway, realistically we wouldn't need that much to make a major difference, and the rest of the money could be spent on local improvements, car parks, even park and ride schemes etc

[Sharpe's Fox]

4 minutes ago, Barky said:

But this idea of promoting other forms of transport has been around for a couple of decades now and been used as an excuse for not improving the road network for just as long. Meanwhile trains are still overcrowded, buses are still crap and car use hasn't fallen. Cars are just too practical and too convenient, people don't want to give them up. 

 

With regards to congestion don't forget the scale of the possible expansion we're talking about. We could build 4,000 miles of dual carriageway, realistically we wouldn't need that much to make a major difference, and the rest of the money could be spent on local improvements, car parks, even park and ride schemes etc

That's the mentality that needs to be shifted. You'd probably say I only use the car because other forms of transport aren't convenient. The transport planner in the council office then says we only design the traffic network for cars because no-one cycles or buses to work. It's a chicken and egg scenario. With sufficient funding for rail and annexing city road lanes for cycle and bus lanes an alternative will be there that people will use but the facilities, political will and funding have to be there. Problem is politicians don't push it because it isn't a vote winner.

 

 It's well known by now you can't build your way out of congestion problems because more people buy cars to use the shiny new road and a few years down the line the problem arises again.

 

[davieG]

6 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

That's the mentality that needs to be shifted. You'd probably say I only use the car because other forms of transport aren't convenient. The transport planner in the council office then says we only design the traffic network for cars because no-one cycles or buses to work. It's a chicken and egg scenario. With sufficient funding for rail and annexing city road lanes for cycle and bus lanes an alternative will be there that people will use but the facilities, political will and funding have to be there. Problem is politicians don't push it because it isn't a vote winner.

 

 It's well known by now you can't build your way out of congestion problems because more people buy cars to use the shiny new road and a few years down the line the problem arises again.

 

Soulsby seems to be finding the funds but the cycle lanes in general are not widely used or even liked. It seems like you can't  just pinch odd bits of roads for cyclists  you need dedicated stand alone joined network and  Leicester  City just doesn't  have the space and we all know Pandy doesn't  work.

 

It looks like H's will cause the electrification of the EU Line to stop in Northampton likewise the GRAMPY has already been curtailed.

[Barky]

16 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

That's the mentality that needs to be shifted. You'd probably say I only use the car because other forms of transport aren't convenient. The transport planner in the council office then says we only design the traffic network for cars because no-one cycles or buses to work. It's a chicken and egg scenario. With sufficient funding for rail and annexing city road lanes for cycle and bus lanes an alternative will be there that people will use but the facilities, political will and funding have to be there. Problem is politicians don't push it because it isn't a vote winner.

 

 It's well known by now you can't build your way out of congestion problems because more people buy cars to use the shiny new road and a few years down the line the problem arises again.

 

This is a bit of a bug bear of mine so bear with me.

 

Most jobs are clustered in city centres. There's only a certain amount of distance people will be prepared to cycle or bus to work, which means if you want to cycle to work you have to live close to where you work. Promoting cycling therefore forces more and more people to live in a relatively small catchment area.  Most areas around city centres are already bursting at the seems with dense shoebox flats and terraces. There isn't any more room to fit more residents in, unless you demolish the terraces and build high rises, which planning departments rarely allow. Prices of residences within cycling distance of workplaces therefore skyrockets, pricing out the same people who you wanted to cycle to work. It just doesn't work. We've had decades of this thought process and it isn't working. We need to find new respect for the car and plan for a future where clean cars and good roads allow people to live further out and still get to work in a sensible amount of time.

[davieG]

How long will it be be for the city centre driving will be mainly 1 or 2 seater electric cars pollution free at use and using less road and parking space.

[Barky]

4 minutes ago, davieG said:

How long will it be be for the city centre driving will be mainly 1 or 2 seater electric cars pollution free at use and using less road and parking space.

 

I think an expanded road network between urban areas, then a high number of park and ride style places around the city, where instead of getting on a bus you borrow a one or two seater electric car, much like the boris bike system, to go from the park and ride into town could work very well. We could make huge inroads into building the infrastructure for such a system with the hs2 budget.

[Sharpe's Fox]

 

5 minutes ago, Barky said:

This is a bit of a bug bear of mine so bear with me.

 

Most jobs are clustered in city centres. There's only a certain amount of distance people will be prepared to cycle or bus to work, which means if you want to cycle to work you have to live close to where you work. Promoting cycling therefore forces more and more people to live in a relatively small catchment area.  Most areas around city centres are already bursting at the seems with dense shoebox flats and terraces. There isn't any more room to fit more residents in, unless you demolish the terraces and build high rises, which planning departments rarely allow. Prices of residences within cycling distance of workplaces therefore skyrockets, pricing out the same people who you wanted to cycle to work. It just doesn't work. We've had decades of this thought process and it isn't working. We need to find new respect for the car and plan for a future where clean cars and good roads allow people to live further out and still get to work in a sensible amount of time.

You make good points but the facts don't support your arguments. When planners make it hard for motorists alternative modes of transport start being used. When Livingston indroduced the congestion charge in 2002 bicycle use skyrocketed and Boris Johnson caught the polical capital to widen it further. Another good example is in Nottingham (I know but hold on) where the Workplace Parking Levy was introduced. It got cars out the city and funded the tram network and I don't know whether you've used it but it's a world class facility.

 

I don't mean to sound crass or overly confrontational but your mindset really is the problem. Fair enough cycle routes only work for distances from about one to ten miles but other modes like trams and park and rides need to be introduced more to facilitate for suburb-dwellers.

[Barky]

3 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

 

You make good points but the facts don't support your arguments. When planners make it hard for motorists alternative modes of transport start being used. When Livingston indroduced the congestion charge in 2002 bicycle use skyrocketed and Boris Johnson caught the polical capital to widen it further. Another good example is in Nottingham (I know but hold on) where the Workplace Parking Levy was introduced. It got cars out the city and funded the tram network and I don't know whether you've used it but it's a world class facility.

 

I don't mean to sound crass or overly confrontational but your mindset really is the problem. Fair enough cycle routes only work for distances from about one to ten miles but other modes like trams and park and rides need to be introduced more to facilitate for suburb-dwellers.

Of course if you intentionally worsen the road network or make it more expensive to use then more people will use alternatives. If you demolished the entire road network then the numbers of people getting the train and cycling would increase to record levels, but would you consider that a success?

 

This is about a huge sum of public money which through hs2 we've set aside to improve the transport network, my argument is that improving the road network should be prioritised because that's how most people prefer or need to use to get around. 

 

City centres are tricky because because all of the land is already developed, so the only way to add new facilities is to build over or under existing development, which are both expensive and in that case of things like eleveated highways, almost impossible to get past the NIMBY's (who have a point - who wants to see an elevated highway from their bedroom window?). I'm not against a reinvented style of park and ride as per my previous post, but whatever we do I can't see how intentionally making the roads worse is doing any real good.

[Sharpe's Fox]

7 minutes ago, Barky said:

Of course if you intentionally worsen the road network or make it more expensive to use then more people will use alternatives, but would you consider that a success?

Edited your post to create a question with an answer.

 

Getting people out of cars is definitely a success. It's better for the environemt, it's better for people's health, it increases social and community trust and it's economically beneficial in the long term.

 

9 minutes ago, Barky said:

This is about a huge sum of public money which through hs2 we've set aside to improve the transport network, my argument is that improving the road network should be prioritised because that's how most people prefer or need to use to get around. 

 

i agree with scrapping HS2 but the money should be used to improve other parts of the rail network and certainly not the road network, as I've mentioned induced traffic is a huge problem. Populism isn't a good policy in this one and saying that we should fund the habits of a regressive majority isn't the solution. Changing people's behaviour and culture around transport certainly is, as it's been proven in places like Denmark and the Netherlands. 

[Barky]

Well as I've said I don't think the environmental argument stacks up when looking to the future. Cars will be just as clean as trains soon enough, and are already cleaner than empty buses.

 

Better for people's health? Forcing people to cycle to get to work? Sounds a bit nanny state to me, that. There must be better ways to promote a healthy lifestyle than forcing people to compete for a limited number of residences so they can cycle to work. 

 

Not sure about the social and community benefits, can you expand on that?

 

Economic benefits, again I don't understand how that works. 

[Sharpe's Fox]

.

[Barky]

Don't think I'm going to be convinced by reports sponsored by the likes of Nike mate, and the world of academia isn't exactly representative, but fair play, I respect your viewpoint.

 

I'm an engineer myself, and have to travel with kit all around the country, I reckon you might see my point of view more clearly when you're doing the same yourself in a couple of years