A "bumper tax haul for January" gave Philip Hammond the "biggest surplus ever recorded", handing him a "boost" prior to his spring statement on 13 March, says Tim Wallace in The Daily Telegraph. The chancellor was £14.9bn in the black for the month, "smashing" the £10bn predicted by economists as record employment rates brought in extra revenue. Public borrowing for the financial year stands at £21.2bn, a fall of £18.5bn on the same period of 2018 to the "lowest level in 17 years".Unfortunately, this isn't the whole picture, says Chris Giles in the Financial Times. "Most data looks worse."
Economic growth is noticeably weak, business investment has "fallen every quarter for the past year and economic sentiment is dropping rapidly". What is going on? Behind the "contradictory headlines", there is a logic: revenues are "stronger than expected", but still not strong, historically. Record employment is offset by weak productivity, which is dampening overall economic performance; and because markets are increasingly betting on a "messier Brexit outcome", they expect lower interest rates and this lowers the forecast for debt interest, flattering the public finances temporarily by lowering government borrowing figures.
A multibillion-pound windfall
If the deal is rejected, MPs will vote on13 March, immediately after Hammond's statement, on whether to reject a no-deal exit. A further vote on delaying Brexit would take place the next day. If MPs vote to allow a no-deal Brexit, the windfall will not be forthcoming.
Subscribe to MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
May's other attempt to get her Brexit deal passed is the launch of a Stronger Towns Fund, through which £1.6bn will be disbursed to less well-off towns in England after Brexit, says Brendan O'Neill in The Spectator. More than half the money, over a period of seven years, will go to the Midlands and the north of England, which, "funnily enough", are the most "Brexity" regions.
Although this cash isn't contingent on MPs backing May's deal, if she is "dangling" it as a bribe to get Labour MPs in these parts of the country to backher deal (which shadow chancellor John McDonnell and others say she is), "it stinks".
Moreover, this attempt to placate voters with a "few hundred quid" shows that "the political class still don't get it". The vote for Brexit wasn't about "narrow self-interest", it was based on principle and the wish for issues of law, trade and border control to be overseen "domestically" and "democratically". The sums are pathetic and often dwarfed by funding cuts, adds the Daily Mirror. And to put the figure in perspective, the Coalition's 2013 Regional Growth Fund was worth £3.2bn.
Nor is there any comparison between this pot and the "vastly larger sums" devoted to London and the southeast, says Simon Jenkins in The Guardian. "Fat-cat consultancies" are reportedly being paid more than £1.6bn "to prepare for no-deal Brexit". These announcements could "make things more difficult", says James Blitz in the FT. None of the efforts looks "decisive enough" to shift enough Tory and Labour MPs to back May's deal. In the meantime, it looks increasingly unlikely that attorney general Geoffrey Cox will secure changes to the Irish backstop the one thing that guarantees winning next week's vote. It is "going to be very tight".
-
Should you invest in UK equities?The FTSE 100 hit a record high this week, but UK equities remain unloved and undervalued compared to their global and US peers. Should you snap them up at a discount?
-
State pension errors: DWP urged to check for mistakes among divorced peopleFormer pensions minister Steve Webb says there are a high number of divorced women on low state pensions. Now MPs want the DWP to check if there were any errors in “potentially underpaying men and women who are divorced”.
