Time to Put COVID Behind Us.

Local Medway blogger, @Ed_Jennings, has produced really regular and useful updates on the COVID19 situation in Medway.  However, in a very testy response, now deleted, to a tweet of mine reflecting on my experience of COVID19, which was very mild Ed responded to me quoting all the cases and hospitalisations and deaths that had occurred since the start of the pandemic as a put down.

I do not criticise Ed at all for doing this and I hope it would be accurate to say that Ed has been a supporter of lockdowns. My own view has been that lockdowns have extended the emergency, been a very blunt tool in dealing with COVID and has had devastating unintended consequences for individuals, businesses and the economy which which will be with us for many years to come.

The lastest wave, Omicron has been a disaster for the Government, Scientists, Data Modellers and the Labour leadership with the travel, hospitality and bricks and mortar retail sectors very badly affected and with little compensation.  The messaging has been confused, publication of stats especially over the Christmas period problematic and very unclear.  Undoubtedly there has been an increase in hospitalisations but substantially down on last year.  It is looking increasingly likely that Omicron has replaced flu for this winter?

The focus on aggregate case numbers is very problematic taken with other opaque and misleading data that has been used to justify Government decision making.  The reporting of COVID19 admissions and deaths is very misleading, probably intentional on the part of Government.  Some of our media are using COVID stories as click bait then providing a number of contradicting stories and the BBC seems entirely focused on the the most negative numbers.  Thankfully the @DailyTelegraph has stopped reporting daily COVID19 numbers.

Clear, unambiguous data is urgently needed so that individuals can see what is going on with COVID and that data needs context by comparing against other diseases. Year-on-year data would be much more useful as we do for every other disease. 

The Government should stop producing daily figure and move to weekly summary produced every Friday listing with it other reasons for hospital admissions and deaths to provide perspective.  At the end of February the stats should be produced monthly and from the end of April three monthly. This should continue until the end of 2022.

The Government should continue to provide advice and run campaigns to get more individuals to have at least two jabs and then move to an annual immunisation shot in the Autumn with the flu jab.  A cheap antibody test should be produced and freely available so that individuals can monitor their own immunity and make decisions based on those test results.

There should be no vaccination passports as these are against everything that we stand for as a nation that believes in Liberty and would represent a massive overreach by the Government.

There should be no further travel bans or disruptive requirements for testing pre or post travel.  The Government needs to work with our partners around the world to stop impinging our freedom to travel and which will allow countries relying on tourism, including here in the UK to rebuild their economies.

All civil servants should return to there place of work with immediate effect.  Government business is being hampered by home working and no-one really believes that civil servants are more productive at home.  Delays in passports, driving licences etc clearly prove otherwise.  If civil servants resist, the Government should step-up its use of AI and other technologies to rapidly fill the gap.

Finally, the Government should already be working on its response to the next pandemic especially around producing testing kits, PPE which should all be sourced and produced in the UK.

We are a resilient nation but Government scaremongering and propaganda has done permanent damage to what used to be called the Blitz spirit.  Time to stop and time to move on.

 

Venezuelan Economics and Incompetence in the Energy Market

It is difficult being a Conservative Party Member to see the failures of the One Nation brand come back to life under the current administration.  We have failed to learn the lessons that State intervention in markets has unintended consequences ad usually fails, miserably.  The really big issue to note that the Government is happy for private enterprises and their shareholders to bear the burden of Government incompetence on a grand scale.

The introduction of the price cap in energy, and lets not forget a Labour Party policy, was intended to protect consumers from swings in energy prices but really was a cover-up for capping the profits of companies supplying energy as well as covering up market failures and the fact that many consumers were simply too lazy to seek out a better deal.  It also placed huge power in the hands of the regulator OFGEM widely acknowledged as incompetent.

You then have to put into this sorry tale the rush for going green which is beginning to take the shape of a Boris Johnson legacy project.  The transition to green energy and zero carbon is probably the right policy but has to be done in a managed and pragmatic way that does not bankrupt the economy and has plenty of contingency built in for the many times the sun does not shine or the wind does not blow.  We need to consider the country’s needs rather than react to a teenage activists demands for her dreams to be protected.

Instead, we have placed our energy security into the hands of a narcissistic French President who will use Britain as his favourite bogey man whenever it suits him and the megalomaniac Russian President intent on serious mischief and taking over Ukraine.

The British people have been badly let down by many previous Governments energy policies who have ducked questions around replacing Britains ageing nuclear infrastructure and have heavily subsidised wind and solar at enormous cost to bill payers. We are now reaping what we have sowed.

Britain needs energy security, we still have reserves of North Sea oil and gas a if we undertook limited fracking large reserves of gas that would give us a huge advantage over our near competitors.  It is time that, ironically, a Conservative Government, stops acting like the proto-socialist Venezuelans and quickly.

National Insurance increases does not solve the funding of social care

 As the Government pushes through its increase in national insurance contributions for employees, employers and for those who receive dividends and yet it continues to make the same mistakes that all Governments since the 1940's have made in attempting to pay the bills of today from taxes raised today.

The Labour Party continues to peddle the lie that all of society's  problems can be solved by taxing the rich a little bit more and waging a tax war against multi-nationals.  Of course both fail as the very wealthy are able organise their tax affairs to reduce tax liability and multi-national ultimately pass tax rises on to consumers as the Digital Services Tax proves.

It is right that services that benefit all citizens should receive a tax contribution from all citizens.  Our problem is that the State consumes ever more resources without necessarily improving public services and there are inevitably unintended consequences.

The costs of social care is a burden that hits the middle classes hard most of whom have done the right thing all their lives and then find that they face losing their home to pay for care which many considered to have been covered through the taxes that they have already paid.

Rightly, the State continues to provide care to those who do not have the means to pay for it themselves but transfers some of that cost by negotiating much lower priced care home contracts subsidised by self-funders.

The increase in NI will hit all employees most of who will receive no benefit in the short term.  It will cause problems as all tax rises reduce economic activity and increase the disincentives for those receiving benefits to re-enter the workforce.  I have some sympathy with the argument that these increases in NI are protecting the inheritance for the offspring of the wealthier middle class who failed to vote for long term solutions in the past.

We need solutions that clearly address the the long term funding issue of social care.  For me the Government needs to think creatively rather than continue to make the same mistakes of previous generations, here are a few thoughts: -

1. There needs to be a clear contract between State and the Citizen on where the State's responsibility starts and ends in providing long term care.
2. It is unfair that the better off in private care homes are subsidising State funded residents.  The Government should consider a not for profit housing association style model for the provision of residential care for  those unable to fund their own care.
3. The additional NI contributions, not Employers NIC, for those under 45 should be placed in long term investment funds to pay care costs in the future for anyone over the age of 75.  It will be necessary to provide a legal framework to stop a future Government requisitioning those funds for other uses.
4. Those in work aged over 45 should be encouraged to start saving for their long term care with the Government allowing a proportion as tax deduction this would be in the taxpayers long term best interest.   
5. The Government must ramp up its public health message to encourage all of us to lead healthier lives in order to reduce the risk of needing long term care as we get older.

The increase in the tax on dividends, when added to increases in corporation tax, will hit a swathe of enterprises reducing the incentives to take the risk on setting up a business and will dissuade investors that Britain is an enterprise economy worthy of investment. Despite what the left says the wealth that funds public services comes from the private sector.

Boris Johnson tax policies are looking distinctly Corbynesque I find myself asking the unthinkable question when will Boris introduce a wealth tax?

Socialism defeated - again.

The outcome of #GE2019 was not a surprise, the surprise was the size of the Conservative’s majority and the consequence for Labour. A rejection of socialism and once and for all of the Remainer narrative that Britain had turned against leaving the EU since the Referendum of 2016.

The Conservative landslide majority was a surprise, I had thought a 30 seat majority likely, with many traditional Labour voters rejecting the metropolitan elites prescription for the economy as unbelievable and undeliverable.  The Labour leadership contempt for their traditional voting base that they could be bought off with loads of free stuff and giveaways whilst surrendering control of big chunks of their lives to the State.

The Conservatives are now the party of the working class, middle class and entrepreneur class whilst Labour have become the party of the liberal metropolitan and academic elite who can afford to gamble with our people’s livelihoods whilst enjoying the protection of their State salaries and gold plated pensions.

In Medway, an outstanding result by any measure for our three sitting Conservative MP’s, Rehman Chishti, Kelly Tolhurst and Tracey Crouch romping home with big increases in their majorities and 62% of the vote between them leaving labour candidates Andy Stamp, Vince Maple and Theresa Murray irrelevant.  Labour only success on the night was retention of Canterbury by the not so genial Rosie Duffield.

Labour’s attempt to cast the “rich” as the only losers who would pay for its manifesto promises, was so easily exposed when it became clear that married people, pensioners with shares receiving dividends, anyone with a pension scheme and almost every small business owner would pay much more for Labour’s socialist agenda.  The lack of detail on the true cost of Labour’s manifesto billions fooled no-one, especially their own supporters.

Labour’s Remainers were gleefully expecting a big victory so that they could grab control of Brexit and then quietly kill it off whilst genial Jeremy was going through the motions of attempting to get a better deal from the European Commission.

EU loving establishment types, John Major, Tony Blair, Michael Heseltine, Dominic Grieve, David Gaulke, John Bercow, luvvies such as Hugh Grant, Lily Allen were all put to the sword by the patriotic working class, described as stupid and uneducated by the ultra-Remainers.

The new Conservative administration has a mandate to get on with Brexit and to move the nation on from dealing with the 2008 financial crash.  Boris Johnson needs to ensure that his ‘One Nation’ brand of Conservatism does not repeat the mistakes of the post-war period of ineffective Government intervention.  

Lower, more efficient business taxes and reasonable de-regulation can and will make Britain more competitive, which will increase economic activity, create more jobs and generate a higher tax take for the Exchequer which will allow for further investment in public services and infrastructure.

This Conservative Government will need to encourage more house building of all tenure types, this will means painful planning reform, get on with reforming the culture of the NHS, to make it totally focused on patients, as well as an increase in funding and the time has come to take decisive steps to deal with the issues in the Care sector.

Updating Britain’s infrastructure must be a priority, and we must not repeat the mistakes of Crossrail, more funding for policing, education particularly skills based further education, so long as it meets the needs of business and a root and branch review of where the Government intervenes in markets to ensure that it is not creating perverse outcomes for consumers and taxpayers.  Shared ownership in housing and the energy price cap are not working.

Finally, we must stop doing things on the cheap and all of us need to be prepared to pay more for better services provided in the public and private sectors.  Travelling on business regularly, I am struck by just how much better certain services are.  In Latvia always on 4G mobile broadband almost wherever you are puts Britain to shame.  It’s a surprise if you can get 3G in Medway as just one example.  

The battle of ideas has been won, now its time to deliver for the nation.

Andrew Lawrence, Medway resident, business owner and former Council Candidate in Watling Ward at the local elections in May 2019.

Dirty Politics

The late Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher once said ‘I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left’ and today that came true in my campaign to be elected as a Conservative Councillor for Watling Ward in Medway's Local Elections.

As per the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, it is an offence for a printer or promoter to publish printed election material without an imprint, and as such this communication is in breach of the law. So whilst I should not have to justify myself, I will set the record straight for the person(s) who anonymously circulated a leaflet to some residents in Watling Ward and has subsequently been tweeted on the Medway Politics, a political blog that claims to be impartial and that fails to provide a contact address or ownership details: -

1. The "Troll of Medway" epithet – this was kindly given to me by a Member of Medway Labour refers to the fact that I am one of very few Medway Conservatives active on Twitter and that I oppose Medway Labour robustly through Twitter commenting on their tweets, campaigns and poor performances in the Council Chamber. It is only those on the left who use the epithet and it is used as an illiberal attempt to silence me.  Twitter is not a space where only left wing commentators are allowed to occupy it is a public forum and if you post something political you should expect a political response. If users of Twitter do not wish to engage with me, then they are welcome to block or not engage with me – of which very few have.
2. A Tweet which was quoted entirely out of context and on its own was part of a very long thread of tweets in which I was engaged in a debate with Medway Labour candidates very late one night.
3. The assertion that I ‘Reside in the affluent area of Hempstead’ – this is no secret. All my published material says I live in Hempstead, I have campaigned in previous local and national elections in Hempstead & Wigmore. I was honoured to have been asked to stand in Watling Ward as Conservative which incidentally shares a boundary with Hempstead & Wigmore.
4. ‘Claims to be a trusted businessman’ - the total ignorance of the author of the leaflet is breath taking and the clear charge here is that I have left a trail of failed businesses. My record on Companies House is clear to see. I was a registered Director of a number of limited companies during my time serving as a Group Operations Director in a previous job. These companies were taken over when I left the business in 2006, and these businesses have therefore been removed as individual businesses on the register. A search on Companies House will show you that these businesses were taken over  Yes, I own a number of businesses (which are providing to the local economy), but I have never run or owned a business that went into bankruptcy, administration or declared insolvent.
5. ‘Doesn’t appear to care for our community’ - This comment comes without any justification or examples and I imagine wrongly based on some preconceived notion about me as a Conservative.  I am actively involved in the Medway community through volunteering or via my businesses where I am able to offer jobs, apprenticeships or through donating time and resources. I am proud to be a School Governor, and my business has also provided sponsorship to a number of local community based groups and projects including the Medway Youth Council and Medway Youth Awards.

So I challenge the person(s) who have circulated the leaflet to come out wherever you are for a debate at a time or place that you can suggest.  I am not holding my breath!

Andrew Lawrence

23rd March 2019

John McDonnell Proposes Worker Shareholders

IS LABOUR NOW PROPOSING TO STEAL THE ASSETS OF BRITISH COMPANIES

In today's Guardian (September 9th 2018) Shadow Chancellor is proposing a major redistribution of wealth from company shareholders to workers.  As with all Labour Party proposals there is much rhetoric but little detail.

So what do we know? Just one fact, from the article, that this proposal will affect companies with more than 250 workers.  To help the self confessed Marxist, Mr McDonnell, I have some questions which would be great to receive answers on: -

1. Why 250 workers?
2. What percentage of shares will be existing shareholders have to give up?
3. Will these shareholders receive fair value and how will fair value be calculated and by whom?
4. Who will pay the legal and stamp duty costs for the transfer of these shares to workers?
5. How will the dividends be allocated to workers based on length of service, age or other arbitrary allocation?
6. If a company has to raise more capital will workers shareholding be diluted or will it be fixed percentage?
7. What happens if the company is sold, do the workers receive a payout? How will the payout be allocated?
8. What is the likely impact on current bonus payments?
9. What is the likely impact on entrepreneurship?
10. What is the likely impact on inward investment in British business? 

The big question for me is that what is the moral basis of this?  An individual or group of individuals invest their own money, intellect, hard work and sacrifice to create a business.  That business grows employees workers and creates wealth the nation through tax receipts and investment.  The State comes along and says regardless of this we are stealing apart of your work and handing over to others who have not made these sacrifices.

Labour seem fixated on the myth that all Employers oppress and exploit their Workers.  Those with these views are people who have never created or run a business and are engaging in a class war that will ultimately destroy wealth, drive out investment  and as with other socialist regimes and leave the poor even poorer. 

Why small business do not become bigger businesses

H M Government is very keen that Britain's small businesses do not sell out too early to overseas businesses.  The Government is clearly worried that jobs, expertise and IPR maybe lost to cash rich overseas companies before they have achieved their full potential.

The latest big number to appear in the business news was the acquisition of  Skyscanner Ltd an online travel portal that has been sold to a Chinese travel company for £1.3Bn .


Now I don't know about you but if someone wants to pay that amount for my business then why would I not take the money and run?

The fact is that running your own business requires you to be a marketing expert, financial wizard, lawyer, social worker and tax collector and that's before you start dealing with customers who are more familiar with their "rights" than they were 10 years ago.

You have to be tenacious and resilient be prepared to lien everything you own to the risk averse bankers for an overdraft to fund working capital and then be prepared to deal with customers who do not pay on time or at all.  It is not for the feint hearted!

Some of the legislation passed by Government that regulates business activity is clearly conceived and written by people who have never run businesses!

In my own businesses with a turnover of approximately £1.5M I employ 28 staff.  I work in a highly regulated area of business with an aggressive Regulator who believes that all the firms it regulates are in business to rip off their customers it does nothing to promote the sector.  It sometimes feels like you are walking a tightrope balancing between success and a stretch of minimum security.

I have had to employ an external contractor to manage all the HR issues that are caused by hugely complicated employment law I also buy in an employee assistance programme so that staff have someone to talk about their personal issues that may cause them to be off work.  Recruiting staff in our area is difficult despite 20%+ unemployment among young people.  Those that we do recruit seem to come with lots of "baggage" and many need a period of adjusting to actually be in work.

Whilst Government has lowered Corporation Tax it has raised taxes on dividends.  It has imposed the workplace pension and for larger businesses the apprenticeship levy, made employers responsible for paying statutory sick pay and imposed a nightmare called the Equalities Act that replaced the lesser nightmare known as the the Disability Discrimination Act.

Now the good news is that owning your own business is rewarding despite the above challenges.  I make very good money and have the freedom that would be denied to me as an employee. I am free to be a School Governor and to get involved in other community projects.

So returning to the original question why don't small business become big businesses I hope that I have set out some of the reasons why but I am a believer in proposing some solutions: -

Business Taxes

1. No capital gains tax or inheritance tax on the founders of a business if they retain their shares for at least 10 years.
2. Tax on share dividends should allow a full credit for the corporation tax paid on the underlying profits to ensure no double taxation.
3. Abolish business rates and replace with a turnover tax applied to all businesses equally.
4. HMRC to chase all businesses equally regardless or size or industry.  I have a sneaking suspicion that established businesses that pay their taxes are treated differently to those businesses that never pay their tax.  Certain sectors such as fast food  and the building trade may appear to the HMRC not to be worth the effort and tallowed to operate in a kind of tax twilight zone.
5. Government does need to deal with the position that multi-national business are able to pay less tax by using complex transfers.  My own favoured solution would be a turnover tax that replaces Corporation and Business Rates. 

Employing People

1. Change the ridiculous requirements that employees accrue all of their benefits when they are off sick or on maternity leave.  For example someone returning from a year's maternity leave immediately can take off their accrued annual paid leave the same with long term sick leave.
2. The Government needs to either abolish Employers' National Insurance Contributions which is a tax on employing people or abolish the pension levy and reinstate recovery of statutory sick pay
3. The Equalities Act imposes hugely unfair requirements on Employers which are particularly onerous for SME's.  For example employees are under no duty to disclose long term illnesses or chronic conditions that require them to have inordinate amounts of time off work.  The need to make so called reasonable adjustments which may be unfair on other employees and lead to resentment.  It is also very difficult to performance manage employees with disabilities without long, protracted and expensive process.

Getting Paid

1. Enforce existing legislation on getting paid include forcing all businesses to publish stats on paying invoices in their annual accounts.  Government may want to consider having statutory allowable credit terms which stops big businesses bullying smaller businesses.

Dealing with Customers

1. Regulation and legislation has titled so far in the favour of the consumer that businesses are floundering in dealing with customer dissatisfaction.  In my own business customer who are dissatisfied immediately invoke their rights whether they are right or wrong.  Our own regulator imposes a £500 case fee for each case referred to it and we have to pay it regardless of whether we win or lose. 
2. The rise of personalities that champion consumer rights also promotes the point that the consumer has no responsibilities such as reading the terms and conditions before buying.
3. I would like to see new consumer protection act that sets out clearly what a buyer of goods and services can expect from the supplier and also the buyer's responsibilities.  A statutory mediator dealing with disputes would also enhance the legislation.