Insights

Circle graphic Circle graphic Circle graphic

Singapore’s sling, good COP bad COP and Russia and Ukraine’s battle of Britain

Policy preview: Singapore’s sling
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and G20 agreement to implement a global minimum 15% corporate tax faces a long road to implementation, particularly as governance standards for policing adherence remain undefined. Singapore is likely to prove a key test case. It has a 17% corporate tax, but offers an array of incentives that can reduce this significantly for many corporate residents, including those tech giants who operate regional headquarters from the city-state or the investment managers based there.

Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong acknowledged as much earlier this month, noting that the city state will have to see how its current tax incentives “will have to be modified”. Singapore is not a member of the OECD, unlike many other alleged ‘tax havens,’ or the G20, but has signalled support for the effort for years now, and members of its government have called out the “artificial shifting of profits” to minimise their tax bills in the past, even as others have accused Singapore of profiteering off such practices.

Singapore remains well-positioned as a corporate hub outside tax competition, but it is nonetheless still likely to ensure that its business environment is as attractive as possible for the multinationals and other businesses that make their home there. It is set to benefit from concerns about the political environment in Hong Kong as well as its membership in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), due to come into effect next year.

Singaporean authorities have indicated that they will seek to take action aimed at making Singapore an even friendlier business environment, including by offering incentives to hire locals and lowering requirements for leasing government-owned office space, a considerable portion of Singapore’s commercial property stock.

However, the temptation for tax adjustments may prove too great – particularly as its strident COVID-19 regulations and increased requirements for permanent residency visas have raised concerns about the quality-of-life and employment advantages it has long held.

Singaporean authorities may state they do not intend to continue to compete on a tax basis, but such declarations have been made in the past with little follow-through. The extent to which it is possible to enforce and regulate the OECD-G20 agreements is likely to be evidenced by Singapore’s corporate tax adjustments.

Power play: good COP bad COP
COP26 has set the stage for a new series of measures to stimulate private markets for climate financing.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson used the conference to renew a longstanding goal, first agreed at the 2009 iteration of the COP conference, to provide US$100bn of climate finance – intended to enable developing countries’ attempts to mitigate and adapt in the face of climate change – annually by 2020.

One year beyond the deadline this target has not been met. Latest OECD estimates show climate finance amounted to some US$80bn in 2019, three-quarters of it provided on a state-to-state basis. Announcements made during COP26 suggest the target will not be met until 2023. Diplomats and negotiators are hard at work trying to pull together enough public and private finance to make the target. Building on Germany and Japan’s positions as the largest providers of climate finance in 2019, we have seen new commitments in recent weeks from the UK, Italy, and Denmark, while US climate envoy John Kerry is confident that the total will be met in 2022. So far, so good?

It is not so simple – what is meant by ‘climate finance’ is itself contested. There are a range of definitions, accounting for the financial instruments used (such as loans or grants), whether contributions are from the private or public sector, and the favourability of interest rates or notice periods. The OECD’s definition of climate finance is broad, encompassing grants, loans and export finance credits from both public and private sectors.

Many developing countries find this definition overly generous, arguing that it obscures how useful and beneficial climate finance might be. For instance, many contributions focus on development projects with only a partial focus on climate goals, and very often governments do not meet their fair share of climate finance contributions.

This contributes to the anger and mistrust felt by developing nations. The founder of a Nairobi-based climate charity, said that the missed US$100bn in 2020 had “hugely damaged” trust in the UN climate summit process, while the Gambia’s energy minister has said that the consequences for developing nations would be grave: “It would be catastrophic because we need those resources”.

This widespread feeling that developed countries cannot be trusted to pull their weight is a challenge to negotiations at COP26, where talks are being held to determine target levels of climate finance beyond 2025. Geopolitical pressure on wealthy countries to deliver is growing. The bulk of climate finance at present is public, but given the political headwinds we can expect to see OECD countries lean on the private sector to find the environmentally and politically necessary levels of finance.

“We [the world’s least-developed countries] bear the biggest brunt of the impact of climate change and we would like to see the commitment that was taken by the developed countries be fulfilled” Lamin B Dibba, The Gambia’s Environment Minister

Dollars and sense: Russia and Ukraine’s battle of Britain

Moscow and Kyiv have been locked in war in eastern Ukraine for some seven years now. Casualties remain a weekly occurrence on the frontlines, even as life goes on largely unaffected in both capitals. The bitter falling out between the erstwhile close allies has had ramifications for international gas markets, NATO, and much more. One front of the conflict has even struck into the heart of Britain, which while not a violent threat, could have major ramifications outside the scope of the conflict.

On 11 November, the UK Supreme Court is due to hold its final hearing in a lawsuit between the two sovereign states, as Kyiv claims that Moscow foisted a US$3bn bond loan on the former, disgraced, government of President Viktor Yanukovych (whose ouster in large part sparked the war) in 2013. Subsequent Ukrainian governments have refused to repay, arguing duress. Russia for its part argues that though the loan was structured under UK laws, that these arguments are not justiciable in the UK.

Ultimately, Kyiv’s bar for a ‘victory’ is lower than Russia’s – if the Supreme Court merely orders a full trial on the merits of any of the various legal arguments Ukraine has made (legal scholars have labelled its approach a ‘kitchen sink strategy) then a series of further appeals by Russia can be expected and the bond will remain outstanding.

The British government has in the past indicated it does not approve of Russia’s approach to the bond, though suggestions that it legislate in support of Kyiv have been dismissed as unworkable – and caused concern this could undermine London’s position as a key market for selling emerging market debt. London and New York have long been the preferred markets for doing so, with their respective legal regimes providing comfort to investors.

Anything other than a ruling in favour of Russia, however, risks affecting London’s attractiveness as a market for such debt – if there is an argument of coercion, this will likely be picked up by activists from groups like the Jubilee Debt Campaign. As is so often the case, much will be determined by the messaging around the ruling and whether Russia seeks to engage in a public relations effort over the judgement. This should be expected; British banks and investors should be prepared for Moscow engaging in its own effort to disparage the standards of English law for such contracts in the event of an adverse ruling.

“Is it really incomprehensible that such an unprecedented policy of double standards could open a Pandora’s box, cause enormous damage to global finances and generally undermine confidence in international financial institutions”

former President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev
Posted in UncategorisedTagged in , , , , , , ,

Sarah Sands moderates a roundtable discussion with Greta Thunberg, Vanessa Nakate and UK newspaper editors and broadcasters ahead of COP26

The last time I was in a room full of newspaper editors it was to discuss press regulation, so naturally all ended in mutiny. On Friday, before Greta Thunberg and Vanessa Nakate headed off to protest against investment in fossil fuel projects, and then onto Glasgow, I introduced them to media decision makers in a private, round table discussion hosted by the Natural History Museum.

This time there was a wholly different spirit and purpose. Greta has remarkable convening power, but as moderator I had wondered whether the journalists would feel they were being lectured. They didn’t. Here was huge media influence coming together in one room, abandoning cynicism, ready to listen and to take responsibility for informing the public and holding government to account.

Greta was also ready to listen, facts at her fingertips but never hectoring. Her faith is in the people rather than the politicians and thus she turns to the media. This slight figure, remarkably composed, speaking perfect English, can hold a room of media leaders who reach millions. Alongside her was a figure of comparable charisma, the Ugandan activist Vanessa Nakate, talking of the moral responsibility towards the global south, which is responsible for a tiny percentage of the world’s carbon emissions, yet pays the highest price in loss and damage.

The media leaders talked, under Chatham House Rule, of their commitments and challenges. How to keep readers interested in a story both existential and urgent without overwhelming and alienating them? How to balance short-term gains – energy security – with medium term destruction?

The climate scientist Professor Simon Lewis, who joined Greta and Vanessa at the meeting, does not mince his words about the scale of the threat to “human civilisation”. Lewis claims in his book The Human Planet, that human kind is a geological force, changing everything, forever.

Greta and Vanessa wanted to meet the media decision makers because galvanising public opinion and keeping pressure on governments are crucial if we are going to get to net zero. The media are good at that. Indeed, Greta has said of the media: “You are our last hope.” There was honest self-examination during the session. One editor raised the rule of journalism that you cannot keep doing the same story and keep reader attention, but then observed that coverage of Covid had shattered that rule.

We discussed the lessons from the pandemic, during which media played an important role in informing the public and persuading them to get vaccinated.

There were further insights: television was thought to have an advantage over print in covering climate because of the power of images. Our senior journalists agreed that humanising and personalising the issue helped with engagement. They also emphasised that hope was important.

Audiences, particularly for financial media, like reading about technological solutions. Can journalists discriminate between aspiration and realistic achievement? Can even scientists be sure of what is going to work?

The editors talked about representing climate stories through entertainment or graphics or on the weather pages, in order to keep audiences engaged. It can be a tough sell: according to George Marshall’s book Don’t Even Think About It, our brains are tragically hard wired to avoid thinking about climate change.

Friday was a thought provoking session from a group of media leaders who have power and recognise responsibility. The final words came from Vanessa Nakate, who had found herself erased from media photographs when she spoke at the youth forum in Milan, an editing decision that seemed symbolic of the lack of attention paid to the global south in discussions about climate change. “Whose story are you telling?” she asked.

Then Greta headed off for her next protests, a small, self-contained figure, immediately mobbed by her supporters. An 18-year-old activist who has become a world figure.

Posted in UncategorisedTagged in , , , , ,

Uranium’s return? Dier’s Day and Emirati geo-economics

Policy preview: Uranium’s return?
In September, uranium spot prices returned to levels last witnessed in 2012, spurred by hopes that Japan would be restarting its investment in the sector a decade after shutting it down following the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster. Nuclear power has been on the lips of politicians elsewhere as well, with many proposing renewed nuclear investment as a key component to the climate crisis. The UK’s Boris Johnson has been a keen proponent, and since assuming office in 2019 has repeatedly floated a plan for a dozen or more ‘miniature’ nuclear reactors.

The past decade has been brutal for the sector. Westinghouse, once America’s flagship nuclear firm, filed for bankruptcy in March 2017 and was later purchased by investor Brookfield Business Partners, though it has been accused of failing to reinvest in the business and dithering on whether to seek an exit. The UK’s pre-Boris nuclear strategy is broadly seen as a failure, with Hinkley Point C beset by repeated delays, knock-on effects for its French state-owned parent EDF’s other projects as well. Russia’s Rosatom has had more success, but its flagship project – near the Lithuanian border in Belarus – has caused the Baltics to limit electricity trading with Russia and Belarus over security concerns. China is the sole outlier, having invested heavily in building new reactors over the last decade, though its efforts to export its building technology have not met success.

Japan restarting its nuclear reactors would provide a new breath of life to the sector but would hardly prove sufficient. The crash in uranium prices that began in 2012 was also driven by Germany’s abandonment of nuclear power, one of outgoing Chancellor Angela Merkel’s most controversial legacies. There have been some hopes that a coalition without her Christian Democrats (CDU) could revisit the decision, but this should be dismissed – the result of the September election means that the Greens are all but assured a role in any government. The party traces its origins to the anti-nuclear movement that inspired much of mainstream student and youth politics in the 1970s. They are more likely to agitate for an EU ban on nuclear power – something the party’s representatives in the European Parliament have previously called for – than allow the resumption of nuclear power plants in Germany.

Uranium is not dead yet, and nuclear power investments may ultimately form a key part of the climate crisis response. But headwinds remain – just look to Japan where the opposition has campaigned on the nuclear power plant restart ahead of the 31 October election, seeking to cast the government as irresponsible.

“Following Fukushima we had to acknowledge that even in a highly technologically-developed country like Japan the risks of nuclear power cannot be safely mastered”. Chancellor Angela Merkel

Power play: Dier’s Day
Eric Zemmour has seeped through French politics this autumn like water from a burst dam, dominating conversation even, and often especially, amongst those most opposed to his right-wing nationalist vision for France. Perhaps the only major political force in the country to successfully ignore him thus far is his right-wing rival, Marine Le Pen and her National Rally (formerly the Front National) party, though this has not proven effective in terms of maintaining Le Pen’s spot in the polls. All this before Zemmour has even formally declared his candidacy. A mix of quasi-literary invectives, national pride, culture war invectives and the effectively-timed leaking of an affair with his assistant have proven irresistible to French media. Zemmour is certainly his own man, but at the genesis of this media frenzy stands one of his closest political advisors: Antoine Diers.

Diers is, like Zemmour, not an elected politician. He also formally does not work for the non-candidate, at least not yet, and serves as chief of staff to the mayor of the upscale Paris suburb Le Plessis-Robinson. He has served as a counsellor himself, in Dunkirk, for the various iterations of France’s traditional main right-wing party, now known as the Republicans, amid the heydays of Nicolas Sarkozy’s presidency. Diers combined this work with a simultaneous stint in student politics (which in France still includes a fair number of right-leaning associations, and neo-Gaullist movements, contrary to popular perception).

Diers, however, quickly moved to the right, becoming a follower of Philippe de Villiers, a former Republican who had broken with the party over what he saw as its insufficient criticism of the influence of Islam in France and Euroscepticism. He was also associated with the right-wing activist Pierre Meurin go on to be director of the academy set up by Marion Marechal after she broke with her aunt Marine Le Pen amid Le Pen’s attempts to detoxify the Front National. Bluntly, he studied with many of France’s most polemic and assertive figures, with experience in new form media and more accustomed to raucous debate than the formal-yet-acerbic debates of the old French intellectual right-wing from which Zemmour hails.

Diers has forced Zemmour into the centre of the national conversation, appearing more often on critical television and radio stations that more established right-wing figures have long considered unworthy of their time. Diers is widely tipped to become Zemmour’s spokesperson once his candidacy is formalised. Even if Zemmour’s candidacy ultimately does fail to win the presidency, Diers has set an example for how the right can seize the French national conversation – experience that will keep him in high demand.

“I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.”

Charles de Gaulle

Dollars and sense: Emirati geo-economics
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has recalibrated its foreign policy in recent years to ensure a greater focus on economic diplomacy, all the while assisting its endeavour to diversify its economy away from dependence on oil.

We have already seen the effects begin to play out with the recently-announced partnership and investment relationship between the UAE and the UK. This is to include Emirati investment in the UK’s green energy and life sciences sectors, but also a tie-up to invest in and expand ports in Senegal, Egypt and Somaliland. The UAE has long had a strategy of investing in African ports, but the partnership with the UK’s Commonwealth Development Corporation helps put it at the centre of Britain’s own ability to project power in the region.

There is precedent for the UAE to use economic ties as a bridgehead for deepening its political links. Last October, it was the flagship Gulf signatory of the Abraham Accords – an agreement between Israel and a number of Arab states to normalise diplomatic relations. This had been preceded by substantial Emirati investment into Israeli business and in particular its services sector. Once unthinkable, UAE and Israeli embassies have opened up alongside formal channels of communication and cooperation.

This diplomatic cooperation paves the way for further partnership in strategically-important sectors. The two countries have proposed cooperation on security matters, and though progress will likely fall short of a full defence pact, Israel’s decision not to intervene to oppose the US’ recent sale of weapons to the UAE points toward further cooperation.

The Abraham Accords also gives further political space for the UAE to promote business ventures with Israel and other international partners. Just last week Israel, India, the US and UAE formed a quadrilateral forum for economic integration, helping them work together on sectors including infrastructure, digital infrastructure and transportation.

Indeed, a joint article by Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan and Yair Lapid, the UAE’s minister of foreign affairs and international co-operation and the foreign minister of Israel, respectively, highlighted the extent of these bilateral partnerships. The pair noted they ranged from an association between the Israeli D’Vaish health food company and the UAE-based Al Barakah Dates Factory, as well as a $1bn investment by Emirati sovereign wealth fund Mubadala into Israel’s Tamar gas field.

UK-UAE economic partnership is following a similar course, with the Emirati state pledging to invest £10bn in the UK’s strategically important clean energy, tech and infrastructure. The UAE has already invested £1.1bn in British companies and funds, including £500m in telecoms infrastructure firm CityFibre. Meanwhile, Mohamed bin Zayed, the UAE’s de facto leader, plans to sign an agreement with the Prime Minister to strengthen trade and collaboration across a wider range of sectors including climate change and regional stability (read: defence and security).

The UAE’s increasing appetite for collaboration and strategic partnerships between the UK and the UAE is only set to increase, providing opportunities for British firms in key sectors both in the UK and internationally.

“As two of the world’s most dynamic and advanced countries, the UAE and Israel together can help turbocharge economic opportunity by pushing for deeper regional integration.” UAE and Israeli Foreign Ministers Abdulla bin Zayed and Yair Lapid

Posted in UncategorisedTagged in , ,

Double Irish surprise, small-town hero? Corporate income tax a la française

Policy preview: double Irish surprise
Ireland’s political economy is set to undergo a rather momentous shift. As a result of the 8 October agreement brokered by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), states are to set out a global corporate tax regime that will see a minimum 15% tax on corporate earnings instituted for multi-national enterprises. Ireland had been a hold out to the pact when it was first teased earlier this year but was reportedly brought on board by a commitment that this rate would not be later increased. Nevertheless, for an economy that has attracted numerous multinationals over the last two decades precisely due to its 12.5% corporate tax rate, though often even a fraction of that because of Irish rules around ‘patriating’ foreign earnings, this marks a potential significant departure.

The Irish government has acknowledged as much in its budget, presented by Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe on 12 October. Corporate taxes will indeed rise from 15% for large corporations, albeit only from 2023. Given Ireland has so long been a jurisdiction of choice for multinationals, rather than necessity, the Finance Ministry warned that move that Ireland has warned will cost at least £800m in tax revenues – imply what you will about what this says about the ministry’s confidence in the 15% minimum tax actually being globally enforceable.

Although the government has not directly tied the two tax shifts to another, Donohoe’s budget announcement did include a new tax that should be able to fill this gap in the budget; a zoned land tax, also due to come into effect in 2023. It is nominally instead meant to replace a vacant sites levy and similarly designed to address a national shortage of homes, but in reality sets a platform for local authorities to radically revisit Ireland’s zoning practices. The rate will be 3% but the power for local authorities to reclassify major swathes of the country as having the potential for development will see the land tax base expand significantly.

The move may well ultimately be successful in raising tax revenues and spurring new development in Ireland. But it is not the first time that Ireland has relied on a mix of land development and tax incentives to expand government spending. A similar mix fuelled the Irish real estate bubble that so dramatically burst in the global financial crisis – one would hope this serves as enough of a warning to ensure the same mistakes are not repeated. Irish debt to national income soared to 108% in 2020, but Donohoe has pledged the new budget will see it fall to 99% in 2022. Whether this bears out may well prove a significant bellwether, or early warning sign.

“Tax competitiveness has brought our country the only prosperity we’ve known”. Bono

Power Play: Small-town hero?
Central Europe is experiencing a wave of political change -the last week has seen the erstwhile wunderkind of Austrian politics Sebastian Kurz resign his premiership amid a corruption probe and in the neighbouring Czech Republic, populist billionaire Andrej Babis’ premiership has also apparently come to an end with an opposition coalition forming after the 10 October elections in the country. Both departures stand in contrast to the relatively orderly ongoing departure of Germany’s Angela Merkel. All three moves, however, hang heavy over the future of Europe’s second-longest serving leader after Merkel, Hungary’s Viktor Orban.

Orban has faced repeated corruption scandals, much like Kurz, though so far has been impervious. He has reshaped Hungarian politics to solidify his Fidesz party’s grip on power, shifting the parliamentary system and engaging in gerrymandering that has outraged liberal opponents – something Babis tried, but failed, to do. However, Hungary’s opposition has finally begun to unify after over a decade of repeated splits. Much as the Social Democrats, Greens, and liberal Free Democrats in Germany are now holding coalition talks that have the potential to put Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union in opposition for the first time in 15 years, Orban’s political opponents have shown a willingness to cross traditional ideological divides in an effort to ‘reset’ Hungarian politics.

Hungary’s opposition has even organised a primary contest to choose a united nominee for prime ministership in the election due to be held next spring. But in a shock turn of events, the contest’s most prominent figure – Budapest Mayor Gergely Karacsony – withdrew from the race on 8 October. Karacsony has built a name for himself at home and abroad as the driving force behind the ‘Pact of Free Cities’ an alliance between mayors across central and eastern Europe that has often challenged their more nativist governments in recent years. Yet in withdrawing, he endorsed the conservative Peter Marki-Zay, mayor of the small town of Hodmezovasarhely.

Marki-Zay had finished behind Karacsony in the first-round of the opposition primary, but the pair are united by a belief that Klara Dobrev, a left-leaning MEP who edged out Karacsony, will be unable to defeat Orban in the national election. The second round is already underway, with votes due by 16 October but Marki-Zay is seen as the favourite. There is precedent in the region for a small-town mayor to upset a political stalwart, in neighbouring Romania Klaus Iohannis did just that in 2014, defeating Prime Minister Victor Ponta in a race for the presidency in 2014. Marki-Zay will be hoping he can likewise make his mark on the region’s politics.

“To tell the truth, I have always seen the 20 years between 2010 and 2030 as a unified era” Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban

Dollars and sense: corporate income tax a la française
Emmanuel Macron is not often hailed for his successes. He has been pilloried from the left and the right domestically, while he has had little success in winning over France new allies internationally – and has arguably further strained relations with both the UK and fellow EU members. His self-perception and actions have earned him the sniggering sobriquet Jupiter. Yet four years into his presidency he has one unalloyed success on which he should be proud to rest his laurels: France’s effective top-end corporate income tax rate has fallen from 44.4 per cent to 28.4 per cent.

The tax is set to fall even further to an effective top rate of 25.8 per cent in 2022. Although the COVID-19 pandemic has strained France’s finances just as it has for so many other economies, Macron has steadfastly insisted that he will maintain the cut plan. This is in contrast to many of his would-be rivals, with Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo coming out in favour of renewed higher taxes (in particular the ‘wealth tax’ on the highest earners that Macron also abolished). The far-right’s perennial candidate of the last decade, Marine Le Pe, is also in favour of a higher tax rate, though it is unlikely to be a major area of her campaign. Those vying for the nomination of the Republican party, the latest iteration of France’s traditional centre-right party, have been critical of Macron’s debt binge, but hesitant to call for further tax rises out right.

Yet despite the headline success, Macron is not expected to make the tax cuts a key feature of his 2022 presidential campaign. Macron is reportedly wary of being seen as too business friendly, least this shift votes to a more left-leaning candidate such as Hidalgo in the first round of the election, or cause the left to stay home in a potential run-off against Le Pen.

But rumours have been circulating that a second Macron presidency would seek to plug the gap in the French budget through a one-off corporate tax, enabling Macron to avoid an embarrassing permanent reversal of his signature success. Macron has already shown himself willing to engage in such taxation accounting fudges – in 2017 the very year he began his cut agenda, a one-off tax of 10.7 per cent on firms with revenues over €250 million. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

“Can a people tax themselves into prosperity? Can a man stand in a bucket and lift himself up by the handle?”

Winston Churchill
Posted in UncategorisedTagged in , ,

Defence’s defence, Sinn Féin and aiding ailing airlines

Policy preview: defence’s defence
UK Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has made plenty of headlines in recent weeks amid the emotional withdrawal from Afghanistan. Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab has as well, albeit suffering from more critical coverage amid reports regarding his holiday during the frantic fall of Kabul in early August. However, it is business secretary Kwasi Kwarteng whose actions this month most clearly illuminate the government’s defence agenda.

On 18 August, Kwarteng issued an “intervention notice on the grounds of national security” regarding US private equity firm Advent International take over UK defence manufacturer Ultra Electronics. Just last year, Advent acquired another British defence firm, Cobham, with UK government approval granted in November 2019 under following reviews by former business secretaries Greg Clark and Andrea Leadsom,despite public opposition from Cobham’s founder.

Cobham is more than double the size of Ultra Electronics by revenue and differentiating between their contribution to national security is not so easy. Both provide crucial services such as Cobham’s aerial refuelling and Ultra’s positioning, location and communications technologies, used in many of the UK military’s most advanced components.

The government had telegraphed for weeks that it was likely to make such a move regarding Ultra. Blocking US private equity firms from investing in the UK, even in the defence sector, risks upsetting the UK’s reputation among an investor class that could be key to the UK’s post-Brexit prospects. The review Kwarteng’s notice ushers in will be reported in January, the same time as the UK’s new National Security and Investment Act comes into force.

The action has two motivations – first a desire to ensure that UK manufacturing and engineering of such high-value technology continues. There have been complaints regarding Cobham’s offshoring and Advent’s apparent prioritising of US development sites in the 18 months since its takeover. The second comes amid a push to ensure the UK’s defence sector, and defence strategy, is not wholly dependent on the US, something various Conservative MPs have harked on amid the Afghanistan withdrawal.

This is not a position limited to the Tory backbenches; even the -Blairite New Statesman has warned against the UK becoming dependent on US foreign policy decision making, while politicians such as Rory Stewart have sought to resurrect their careers by calling for a limited UK force to remain in Afghanistan, knowing they won’t be held to account for a policy that will never come to pass.

Boris Johnson and Biden’s lacklustre relationship, and the UK’s search for a new post-Brexit foreign policy mean that such rumblings will continue. However, upon a review of costs, it is likely to become quite clear to Johnson that it will be far too expensive to keep US investment out, let alone invest sufficiently to give the UK independent defence capabilities again.

Where there is smoke, there is not always fire.

“Tony Blair made decisions on what he thought was best for the people of Great Britain, and I made decisions on what I thought was best for Americans” Former president George W. Bush

Power play: a big dail
Sinn Féin won the most votes in Ireland’s February 2020 elections for the first time, with 25% of votes. As the coalition between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil, traditionally the two main political competitors, faces low public approval and continued strong polling for Sinn Féin, what chance does the leftist radical Republican party have of entering a future government?

Sinn Féin candidates won comprehensively across the country in 2020, with many of the party’s incumbent members, Teachtai Dala (TDs), re-elected on the first count, a rarity in Ireland’s ranked-preference system of constituency proportional representation.

However, Sinn Féin won fewer seats than Fianna Fáil – 37 to 38 – as the party did not run multiple candidates in every constituency. The party has spent the last 16 months preparing for the potential for another election, and to ensure it does not leave ‘seats on the table’ once again – had they more candidates in the last election, it is estimated the party would have received 41 seats. 80 are needed to form a government.

Despite Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil’s opposition – they hold a combined 73 seats – as a result, Sinn Féin is very likely to become a party of government in the medium term.

In recent years the party has sought to broaden its appeal beyond radical Republicanism by embracing left-liberal progressivism in the mould of Greece’s SYRIZA or Spain’s Podemos. This has proved popular amongst Ireland’s younger voters, who form the backbone of Sinn Féin’s electoral success and are driving historic success in the polls, which it has been leading since before Christmas.

Based on the latest polls, Sinn Fein might win as many as 50 seats in the next general election. The Dáil has a sizeable proportion of around 20 independents, predominantly local and leftist candidates, and TDs belonging to smaller left parties such as the Labour Party or Social Democrats. Should Sinn Féin prove successful at the next election, a broad left coalition with Sinn Féin as the largest party could be its route to power.

Aside from strengthening calls for Irish reunification, with Sinn Féin also leading polls in Northern Ireland, a Sinn Féin victory in the Republic of Ireland would prove significant on a number of fronts.

Though its policies may be altered should the party form a coalition, Sinn Féin have pledged to deliver ‘the largest public housing program in the history of the state’ as well as to implement a 3-year rent freeze.

Though it seeks to maintain Ireland’s famously low 12.5% rate of corporation tax, multinational companies should note Sinn Féin’s intentions to tighten the tax environment by closing tax loopholes, as well as their demands on firms to be more transparent about their tax affairs.

Sinn Féin entering government would be a significant landmark in Irish politics, and is a real possibility in the medium term. A radical progressive program would include ramped up social spending on housing and a more sceptical approach to Ireland’s position as low-tax business environment.

“To go for a drink is one thing. To be driven to it is another.”

Michael Collins

Dollars and sense: aiding ailing airlines
It is no surprise that aviation has been among the sectors most battered by the pandemic, and which continues to face significant uncertainty about its prospects given the ongoing threat of further viral mutations. The UK government has come under considerable public pressure to do more to respond, with calls from airliners, airports, and the communities that house them for the government furlough scheme to be extended for the sector past the end of September.

So far, however, there has been little reaction to such pleas. Chancellor Rishi Sunak appears to have ruled out furlough extensions in response to a letter signed by 67 MPs from across Parliament calling for such action.

The future of the UK’s aviation sector is not merely a matter for the Treasury, however. Extending furlough would be expensive, but failure to support aviation amid the ongoing uncertainty risks Britain losing out to European competitors, and for London’s status as an international transit hub diminished. One individual unlikely to countenance such a loss is Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng, who represents the constituency of Spelthorne, a hub for employees of Heathrow Airport and related industries.

A number of leading lights in the aviation industry have appealed to Kwarteng, and the government more broadly, for support. Aside from extensions to the furlough scheme, their primary ask has been to seek a reduction in airline passenger duty (APD), the variable tax (depending on class of travel and distance) that passengers pay when booking a ticket.

Numerous APD increases were pushed through Parliament under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition from 2010 to 2015, to help pay for government spending as mandated by the era’s dedication to austerity. Shockingly, APD for long-haul flights was again increased in the March 2021 budget. Yet with so many flights still grounded as travels has yet to recover to 2019 levels, receipts have fallen off a cliff. Properly communicated, a campaign for the temporary reduction or suspension of certain APD charges may prove the most effective way to guarantee government support for the sector.

Exemptions to APD already exist – passengers on long-haul flights departing Northern Ireland do not pay the fee. Regional and smaller airports can argue for such an exemption to ensure they survive the pandemic, and help with the government’s ‘levelling up’ agenda. Heathrow and other large airports similarly should position the potential for exemptions as one of the benefits of Brexit to the sector, not normally seen as a winner of the recast EU-UK relationship.

The same March 2021 budget that raised the long-haul APD merely froze it for short-haul flights but Prime Minister Boris Johnson opened the door to a cut for domestic flights only. A consultation is ongoing, but pressure for the government to act should come now – especially as it will become hesitant to do so as the COP26 climate change conference’s 1 November launch approaches.

“Heathrow expansion is supported by businesses, unions, trade bodies, airlines and airports across the country, as well as many local communities whose economic livelihood depends on the airport’s continuing success” Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Kwasi Kwarteng

Posted in UncategorisedTagged in , , , ,

Poll tax, redux? Much ado about Chesham and Amersham and a Swiss family affair

Dollars and sense: Much ado about Chesham and Amersham
“Like one that draws the model of a house, beyond his power to build it; who, half through,, gives o’er and leaves his part-created cost, a naked subject to the weeping clouds, and waste for churlish winter’s tyranny” William Shakespeare

The Chesham and Amersham by-election raises serious questions for the future of the Conservative Party’s planning and homebuilding policy. The Liberal Democrats’ overturning of a 16,233-vote majority on a campaign built off of local opposition to new house construction and the HS2 high-speed rail line (despite the party backing both on a national level) highlights just how salient such issues are in the Conservatives’ ‘Blue Wall’. British by-elections are renowned for producing shock results, but they often belie the state of national politics.

The Chesham and Amersham vote is one such result. While suburban London and much of the home counties are undoubtedly fertile ground for Liberal Democrats, tactical voting – which saw the main opposition Labour Party win just 600 votes – is far less common during general elections. A so-called ‘Lib-Lab’ coalition has never seriously manifested itself, least of all at election time, despite repeated efforts.

As a result, papers are aflutter with talk of whether Prime Minister Boris Johnson will reverse his proposed planning bill and other manifesto commitments aimed at increasing the number of new homes built by 300,000 a year. Many Conservative party stalwarts have proposed just that, and some MPs such as Theresa May, Johnson’s predecessor as prime minister have been pushing for such a reversal since well before the by-election was called.

The crux of the matter is the fact that Britain’s strict planning permission requirements – while ostensibly aimed at sustaining greenbelts, protecting architectural heritage, and providing local communities with democratic input over their own development – are also a key driver of house price appreciation. The Conservatives traditionally do far better in areas with high home ownership, with Labour’s strength historically in urban areas with high rent share.

However, the fate of the ‘Red Wall’ should cast doubt upon these assumptions. Home ownership rates are fairly high in the north-east seats where the Conservatives saw such success in 2019. House prices are crucially far lower than in the area around London, but the price differential was far smaller during Labour’s heyday under Tony Blair even as home ownership rates were broadly similar to their present levels. House price decreases in northeast can in part be attributed to low population growth compared to the rest of the country, driven by employment decreases.

New home construction in areas where population has increased may decrease the rate of house price appreciation, but the north-east demonstrates this does not spell doom for Conservative hopes. As the population grows elsewhere, new homes will have to be constructed to eventually bring more voters onto the property rolls. Expect Johnson to continue with his planning reforms – it would not be the first time he has discarded the advice of May and her ilk.

Policy Preview: Poll tax, redux?
“The increase in the value of land, arising as it does from the efforts of an entire community, should belong to the community and not to the individual who might hold title” John Stuart Mill

Planning policy is not the only significant change to the UK’s housing and property market that has been in the public debate in recent months. Property tax change proposals have been bandied about at a rate not witnessed since 1991, when the ‘poll tax’ was withdrawn in the face of significant public opposition just a year after its introduction, helping to end Margaret Thatcher’s prime ministership along the way.

The 2019 Conservative manifesto raised the spectre of such a change in its call to “redesign the tax system so that it boosts growth, wages and investment and limits arbitrary tax advantages for the wealthiest in society”. Council tax are among the most tangible example of such policy to many voters: the four lowest council tax rates are all found in central London while the highest rates are found in far less wealthy, and even relatively impoverished, areas. For example, Hartlepool, which the Conservatives won in a by-election in May for the first time, has the fourth highest council tax rate despite being the 11th most deprived area in England.

Given the Conservative shift to the north, and the aim to solidify the former Red Wall as a new Tory heartland, it is therefore no surprise that Bright Blue, an independent think tank advocating an agenda of liberal conservatism, in late May published a report declaring an ‘annual proportional property tax (is) the best system for levelling up the country,” employing Downing Street’s favoured phrase for its Northern-friendly policies.

Bright Blue is by no means alone in calling for such a system, which will be familiar to American readers, in which property taxes are directly tied to the value of a home. The present council tax system was also meant to partially take home value into consideration, hence its ‘bands’ but the valuations were set in 1991, where they remain frozen (except in Wales), and rates for bands are directly tied to one another.

Numerous Labour MPs have called for a proportional property tax, and even making the tax payable by the home owner (council tax is paid by residents, including renters, rather than home owners) as has former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable.

While the government sets thresholds for council tax increases, policy is otherwise left largely to the councils themselves. Recent Conservative governments have increased local tax authorities’ powers by also expanding the ability of local councils to retain tax on local businesses for local spending, part of its devolution agenda.

It is this policy that one should expect to be reversed. Johnson may well look to have the government redirect funds raised from business rates tax to fund his levelling up agenda. A tax on commercial land tied to its value is also a serious possibility. But the backlash that would result from a proportional residential property tax in the ‘Blue Wall’ would provoke a backlash that would risk escalating the post-Chesham and Amersham Conservative squabbles into a potential re-run of the party’s poll tax crisis. It shall not pass.

Power play: a Swiss family affair


“The best inheritance a father can leave his children is a good example”

John Walter Bratton

The Swiss Federal Council’s decision in late May to abandon negotiations with the European Union over a new framework agreement to replace the dozens of treaties that currently facilitate Swiss access to the single market, and EU citizens’ right to seek employment in Switzerland among other matters, was the result of years of strained negotiations. Yet it marks the crowning achievement of one man, long the eminence grise of Swiss politics, Christoph Blocher.

Blocher is a unique political figure, in a unique political system. While UK audiences may see commonality between his Euroscepticism and his right-wing Swiss People’s Party’s rhetoric and the role that Nigel Farage has played in UK politics over the last 20 years, Blocher’s role in reshaping Swiss politics goes far beyond. Although he only ever sat on Switzerland’s seven-member Federal Council, the executive government body in the country, for one four-year term from 2003 to 2007, in Europe only Germany’s Angela Merkel and Hungary’s Viktor Orban have spent a comparable amount of time at the pinnacle of national politics.

Blocher is arguably even more controversial than Farage. His narrow 2003 election to the Federal Council over incumbent Ruth Metzler marked the first time an incumbent member was not re-elected since the 19th century, breaking Switzerland’s tradition of amicable cross-party politics. The second, and final time, a councillor has failed to secure election came when Blocher himself was ousted four years later when other parties placed a cordon sanitaire over his candidacy although his Swiss People’s Party (SVP) won a record number of seats in the National Council, the lower house of the Swiss parliament.

Notably, Blocher has never formally headed the SVP. Though it split in 2007 when another party member accepted a seat on the council in Blocher’s stead, and again a few years later, the SVP has remained the largest party in Swiss politics by some margin ever since.

At 80, with the idea Switzerland would inevitably be drawn closer to the EU now firmly in the rear-view mirror, Blocher has indicated he may be ready to give over the reigns of the party he has never officially led. The party’s current president, Marco Chiesa, is another figurehead and not the likely heir.

Instead, his daughter Magdalena Martullo-Blocher, a SVP representative in Parliament, is his heir apparent. There is already precedent for such a succession, she took ownership of chemicals firm Ems-Chemie decades ago as her father entered politics, and formally succeeded him in 2008. She has clearly had success, with Bloomberg estimating her to be worth $8.6 billion, a gargantuan fortune even by Swiss standards. Despite unconvincing denials of any such interest by father and daughter, Martullo-Blocher will seek an even more commanding role atop Swiss politics than her father ever held.

Posted in UncategorisedTagged in , , ,

Der Kingmaker, the debt ceiling and Lithium in coalition

Policy preview: ending the debt ceiling?
The US’ debt ceiling is among the most despised institutions of US politics, from the perspective of the Democratic Party. The ceiling formally institutes a limit on how much the US government can borrow – but in practice it has never done so, having been consistently raised since its introduction just over 100 years ag, even in the 1990’s when then-president Bill Clinton managed to run a rare surplus.

The ceiling is once again in the news after the Republican Party refused to support raising it in a procedural vote on 27 September. The ceiling was of course consistently raised under former president Trump, when Republicans controlled the Senate, and it was formally suspended for two years in August 2019. While this may well have avoided its politicisation during the COVID-19 pandemic, the vast government spending rapidly required by the initial response to the virus highlighted the potential risks in retaining such a limit.

Democrats argue that the Republican Party politicises the limit every time that it is out of power, pointing to the government shutdowns that resulted from refusals to raise the limit when Barack Obama was president and former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s 1995 move to separate the increase from the annual budgetary process. But at the same time the Democrats have been wary of publicly calling for its elimination, which could be perceived by voters as embracing fiscal irresponsibility.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has warned that failure to raise the ceiling could lead to a formal default, declaring this would push the US back into recession. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell – who former president Donald Trump nominated to replace Yellen in that post – has made the same point.

Republican Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell has used the latest standoff to say that the buck stops with the Democratic Party this time, given the party’s control of both houses of Congress and the presidency. He is correct in that the Democrats can use the budget reconciliation process – which would override the Republican ability to filibuster such a vote – to eliminate the debt ceiling. Yet the Democrats are seemingly unwilling to open the 2022 budget resolution to do so, which could galvanise opposition to increased spending from centrist Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kirsten Cinema, already engaged in a standoff with their own party over a US$3.5 trillion social policy and US$1 trillion infrastructure bill.

The Democratic Party may therefore have an interest in allowing a brief crisis over the debt ceiling even as they control all branches of government. Previous shutdowns have failed to significantly affect domestic political trends. McConnell’s relationship with Trump and the less fiscally cautious wing of the party that has been so ascendant since his 2016 election victory is strained, with Trump reportedly seeking to stoke a leadership challenge among Republican Senators. Despite McConnell’s declarations, the intricacies of Senate parliamentary process are not of interest to most American voters.

Strange as it may seem, if Democrats are hoping to lay the blame for any fallout at McConnell’s feat, in hopes it will engender an environment in which they can finally push through the debt ceiling’s abolition in 2022.

“Democrats have every tool they need to raise the debt limit. It is their sole responsibility”. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

Power play: Der Kingmaker
Germans went to the polls on Sunday, and the election appears to already have a likely winner. The leader of the Social Democratic Party (SDP), Olaf Scholz, is look set to be the next Chancellor. However, the two smaller parties he will need to support his governing coalition will have to find a lot of compromise.

The SDP won the most seats in the election in a disappointing night for the Angela Merkel’s governing Christian Democratic Union (CDU).

The party sitting closest politically to the two largest parties, the SDP and the CDU, and thus natural coalition partners in the next government is the FDP, whose leader Lindner has been described as a ‘kingmaker’ who must choose the next leader of the Republic.

However, a coalition made up of the CDU, FDP and Greens, is politically implausible. The CDU suffered a heavy defeat on Sunday, losing a quarter of its support compared to the last election in 2017. Their leader is already facing calls to resign from within his own party, and is no longer a serious contender for the Chancellery.

The most likely outcome is a ‘traffic-light’ coalition between the Greens, the SDP, and the FDP. The SDP will need to form a coalition with these parties in order to form a government. But while the Greens favour statist intervention, the FDP is more aligned to a laissez-fair economic doctrine, preaching faith in markets to solve the climate crisis.

So while Lindner may no longer the ‘kingmaker’ – with little tangible choice over who will be the next Chancellor – more significant may be areas where the Greens and the FDP can find common ground. Whereas the Greens and SDP largely align on economic policy, the FDP support significant tax cuts and adherence to the debt brake. Division over climate issues such as the future of the car sector, Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, and how to best protect households from the impact of climate policies, may prove to be sticking points.

However, early signs suggest compromise is possible – the Greens and FDP already have entered negotiations between themselves to better enable them to present a united front. To give just one example, Lindner has called for a state investment fund, separate from the federal budget, borrowing and invest with higher returns. The Greens may well see this as the route to climate infrastructure investment without having to increase national debt to unacceptable levels.

Perhaps Lindner will not be kingmaker, with Scholz apparently already Chancellor-in-waiting. But the success of Germany’s next government will depend on how much compromise can be reached by the FDP and the Greens – and early signs are promising.

“For me, it is always important that I go through all the possible options for a decision”.

Chancellor Angela Merkel

Dollars and sense: Lithium in coalition
Germany’s Green Party is all but certain to enter its next government after the 26 October elections – having come in third, both the first-place Social Democrats (SPD) and the runner-up Christian Democratic Union (CDU) have they want to discuss forming a coalition with the party. Any realistic coalition other than a renewed CDU-SPD grand coalition, which both have said they wish to avoid, would require the Green’s participation. The Green’s environmental agenda has been embraced by both as well, but one major question facing any new coalition will be how they balance environmentalism and NIMBYism.

Pollsters reported that more Germans identified climate change as their primary concern going into the elections, rapidly overtaking COVID-19 as the summer progressed. The German auto industry has also undergone a rapid shift to supporting the electric transition for the sector as well, spurred on by Tesla’s development of a ‘gigafactory’ outside Berlin – something the outgoing grand coalition pushed for. The CDU’s chancellor candidate, Armin Laschet, even met with Elon Musk in mid-August, seeking to brandish his parties green credentials.

Incidentally, Laschet posed a question to Musk that said gets to the heart of Germany’s green agenda: “hydrogen, or electric?”. Musk laughed it off, endorsing the later (on which he has staked his company) wholeheartedly but that such a question could still be posed in German politics highlights the quiet discomfort many at its peak express with regards to a core aspect of the transition: the supply of lithium batteries.

Demand for lithium has grown exponentially over the past decade, but Europe has repeatedly failed to develop its own sources. Plans for lithium mining in Portugal collapsed in April, and while the UK has made some very early tentative progress towards exploiting its own lithium, post-Brexit competition and EU rule-of-origin and tariffs mean that integrating European auto manufacturing with UK battery production is unrealistic at present.

Despite the enthusiasm for the green agenda, the Green Party has been at the forefront of opposition to lithium mining. At the European level, the party has fiercely opposed the US$2.4 billion Rio Tinto led Jadar mine project in Serbia over concerns it will degrade the local biodiversity and agricultural fertility and in solidarity with local protests.

Whatever coalition is formed in Germany, it will have to deal with the reality that Berlin risks being left behind if Europe remains without a significant local lithium supply. Otherwise, its auto industry risks being left behind.

“We have to think of where the raw materials come from… but we want to further develop and expand electro-mobility here in Germany, particularly with the production of batteries”. Annalena Baerbock, co-leader of the Green Party

Posted in UncategorisedTagged in , , , , ,

Jess Phillips, Labour Party MP on support of alienated voters and the role all businesses can play in supporting their employees who may be suffering from domestic violence

Following the poor performance of the Labour Party’s recent election results and the subsequent botched reshuffle, the direction of the Party remains very uncertain. Jess Phillips, Labour Party MP and Shadow Minister for Domestic Violence and Safeguarding, spoke to Hawthorn’s Sarah Sands on Tuesday 18th May.

Author of three books, including the Sunday Times Bestseller, ‘Truth to Power’ and the forthcoming ‘Everything you need to know about being an MP’, Jess is known as being one of Westminster’s most outspoken MPs. She spoke about how the party can win back the support of alienated voters as well as discussing the role all businesses can play in protecting and supporting their employees who may be suffering from domestic violence.

Listen to the replay of Sarah Sands in conversation with Jess Phillips, MP.

Speakers
Jess Phillips is a Labour Party politician who became the MP for the constituency of Birmingham Yardley at the 2015 general election. Jess has committed her life to improving the lives of others, especially the most vulnerable. Before becoming an MP, Jess worked for Women’s Aid in the West Midlands developing services for victims of domestic abuse, sexual violence, human trafficking and exploitation. She became a councillor in 2012, in this role she worked tirelessly to support residents, with her work being recognised when she became Birmingham’s first ever Victims Champion. Since becoming an MP, Jess has continued her fight to support those who need it the most and has earned a reputation for plain speaking since being elected, unfazed by threats and calling out sexist attitudes as she promotes women’s rights. Jess has written two bestselling books ‘Everywoman: One Woman’s Truth About Speaking The Truth’ and ‘Truth to Power: 7 Ways to Call Time on BS’.

Sarah Sands, Board Director at Hawthorn. Sarah joined Hawthorn from the BBC, where she was editor of the Today programme, Radio 4’s flagship news and current affairs programme. She was previously editor of the London Evening Standard, the first woman to edit The Sunday Telegraph and deputy editor of The Daily Telegraph. Sarah is Chair of the Gender Equality Advisory Council for G7 for 2021 and of the political think tank Bright Blue. She is also a Board Member of London First and Index on Censorship and is a Patron of the National Citizen Service.

Posted in UncategorisedTagged in , , , , , , , ,

Mutually assured construction, supply chain finance after Greensill, breaking the iron plate?

Policy preview: mutually assured construction
“Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here! This is the War Room!” Dr. Strangelove, or How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb

The Trump Administration formally named China as a ‘currency manipulator’ in January 2019, but withdrew the designation January 2020 after striking the ‘Phase 1 Trade Agreement’. As part of the deal, both sides also agreed to honour currency related commitments undertaken through their G20 membership – effectively a pledge not to seek to interfere in the market to adjust the value of the renminbi, or the US dollar, to the advantage of one side over the other. The trade pact’s purchase agreements have effectively gone by the wayside due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Despite the trade agreement’s fragile state, and the Biden Administration’s continuation of an openly confrontational stance vis-a-vis Beijing, the Treasury Department under its new Secretary Janet Yellen has not re-applied the currency manipulator label to Beijing.

Even if Chinese-US relations further deteriorate, however, one should not expect the Biden Administration to re-impose the designation even amid escalating claims that Beijing’s intervention in currency markets is stepping up as demand from Beijing plays a key role in driving the recovery from the pandemic.

The reason is straightforward, if counterintuitive. The Biden Administration sees Beijing’s intervention in currency markets as evidence of China’s continued dependence on US capital markets. This is where the ‘new Cold War’ differs significantly from the Soviet-Western Cold War to which it is so often compared. The Soviet Union was not integrated into Western capital markets, and while its trading relationship with the West grew steadily from the 1970’s until its collapse, it was primarily in raw materials, never reached even a fraction of the supply-chain integration that has developed between China and the US.

The diversification of US supply chains away from China will likely continue, the Biden Administration has effectively called for it to do so even if in a less direct manner than Trump did. Continuing to maintain Beijing’s integration into US-led Western capital markets under such circumstances, however, can be seen as one of Biden Administration’s policy goals as well, and one where it differs significantly from its predecessor.

Labelling China as a currency manipulator authorised the Trump Administration to take punitive measures in response, but it never seriously did so – using other frameworks to justify its tariffs regime. That may have been at least in part because of the long-held belief China could respond by selling off its US Treasury stock. However, the capital markets integration discussed above means that this would be all-but certain to collapse key Chinese markets as well.

Under Biden, Washington appears to believe the status quo – of China needing to keep the renminbi at a relatively low value, buying foreign exchange in the process – leads to an effective form of economic deterrence.

Dollars and sense: supply chain finance after Greensill


“Sooner or later, everything old is new again.”

Stephen King

The collapse of Greensill Capital in recent weeks had political, reputational and economic implications for a wide swathe of the United Kingdom. The future of some of its largest steel plants has once again been thrown into doubt, its employment of a host of civil servants and former prime minister David Cameron has led to a series of embarrassing revelations, and questions are being raised about the process in which it became involved in managing certain National Health Service (NHS) payments to staff and pharmacies. Additionally, a misunderstanding of Greensill’s business, or at least its purported business, risks having a further negative affect on the supply chain finance industry – and in this case it is very much not deserved.

Supply chain finance rarely makes it into the public forum but is a bedrock of the modern global trading system. It is best understood as payments ahead of delivery of a product – think of a farmer borrowing to pay for seed and repaying with the crop – and is arguably the oldest form of finance. Its expansion helped fuel the mercantilist era beginning in the 16th century and the industrial revolution thereafter.

This is precisely why Greensill’s proposition of ‘disrupting and growing the supply chain finance sector’ failed to pass the sniff test amongst many critical journalists – the fact that it is such an established legacy form of financing means that it has effectively been a shrinking market for decades, potentially more.

As global financial markets have become more complex, derivatives markets have grown, and all manners of financing have become available, they effectively have squeezed the space for supply chain finance. This is not to be bemoaned but combined with the thin margins resulting from the short-term nature of most supply chain loans and the record low interest rate margins means the sector was an unlikely place to find a firm selling itself as a tech unicorn as Greensill did.

Greensill’s collapse was precipitated by revelations that it was not really a supply chain financier. It was effectively offering long-term unsecured loans mislabelled as supply chain financing. No other significant lenders have been implicated in the scandal.

In fact, the Greensill revelations come exactly at a moment when supply chain finance has the potential to expand. The trend against globalisation may seem an unlikely driver of growth but with the US remaining hostile to China despite the presidential transition, the post-Brexit ‘global Britain’ agenda, and the pandemic-induced realisation that diversification of supply sources can add significant resiliency, supply chain finance will play a key role.

It would be unwise to tar the entire sector with the black brush that has painted over Greensill – doing so could limit the post-pandemic recovery and the effort to make supply chains more resilient to another bout of trade wars or in the face of future global health concerns.

Power play: breaking the iron plate?
“Hillary used the word ‘glass ceiling’ … but in Japan, it isn’t glass, it’s an iron plate” Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike

Japan faces a key test in hosting the rescheduled 2020 Olympics this summer, after a year’s delay to the COVID-19 pandemic, yet it lags similarly-developed nations in its immunisation programme by some distance, with just 1% of the population inoculated as of the time of writing. It is a potential make-or-break moment for the ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) and its relatively new prime minister, Yoshihide Shuga, who took office last September when predecessor Shinzo Abe stood down citing health concerns.

Abe’s eight years as prime minister broke a trend of short-lived premierships but the present challenges may re-ignite the trend. Japan is scheduled to host elections for its key lower house this October and Shuga’s popularity has fallen from near 70% during the handover from Abe, which came as Japan was relatively unaffected by COVID-19, to closer to 30% for much of 2021 as COVID-19 infection numbers rose and the vaccination programme lagged. These were compounded by a series of corruption scandals involving LDP parliamentarians and officials, although it should be noted that Abe himself brushed off a number of similar revelations.

Shuga, in contrast, does not have the reputation as a solid economic manager that Abe had garnered. His greatest challenge may not be at the ballot box, however.

The LDP has governed Japan almost unbroken since 1955, only falling out of government between 1993-1994 and in 2009-2012. Although the party is generally conservative and right-leaning, it has accomplished this impressive feat in no small measure due to its sense of political opportunism and ability to read the prevailing political winds. Shuga is up for re-election as party leader on 30 September.

Shuga may find some comfort in the fact his party is bereft of other major political challengers, or at least ones not affected by the same issues he faces. However, this provides a key opening from a position adjacent to the party, that of Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike.

A former LDP MP, she ran to become the party’s leader in 2008, finishing in third. Citing then-US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s reference to the ‘glass ceiling,’ she said she aimed to break the ‘iron plate’ for female politicians in Japan. This comment appeared to be reinforced by the fact the LDP withheld its approval of her ultimately-successful candidacy for Tokyo Governorship in 2016.

Koike created her own party to run in the 2017 national election, though did not stand herself, but relations were somewhat healed when the LDP endorsed her re-election in 2020. She retains significant popularity within the LDP, and in contrast to Shuga, has received plaudits domestically for her efforts to combat the pandemic. The Olympics will also offer her an opportunity to grow her international profile. By the time the election comes around, she may well not just be back in the LDP, but sitting atop it.

Posted in UncategorisedTagged in , , ,

‘Identity, Ignorance, Innovation’ the three forces shaping our modern world with Matthew d’Ancona

Sarah Sands, spoke to the award-winning political columnist Matthew d’Ancona on Wednesday 24th March.

Matthew spoke about his new book ‘Identity, Ignorance, Innovation’ the three forces shaping our modern world.

Listen to the replay of Sarah Sands in conversation with Matthew d’Ancona.

Speakers
Matthew d’Ancona, is an award-winning political columnist for The Sunday Telegraph, Evening Standard and GQ. Previously, he was Editor of The Spectator, steering the magazine to record circulation. In 2007, he was named Editor of the Year (Current Affairs) at the BSME Awards. In 2011, he won the award for ‘Commentariat of the Year’, the highest honour at the Comment Awards.

Sarah Sands is a Board Advisor at Hawthorn. Prior to this she was editor of the Today programme, Radio 4’s flagship news and current affairs programme. She was previously editor of the London Evening Standard, the first woman to edit The Sunday Telegraph and deputy editor of The Daily Telegraph. Sarah is an honorary fellow of Goldsmiths College, University of London, Lucy Cavendish College Cambridge and a visiting fellow to the Reuters Institute. She is chairwoman of the political think tank Bright Blue, a patron of National Citizen Service and was chair of the Women’s Prize for Fiction.

Posted in UncategorisedTagged in , , ,

Washington’s weapons in tax treaty fight; Tobin tax’s latest turn and Madrid’s Diaz Ayuso

Policy preview: Washington’s weapons in tax treaty fight
“If the U.S. came down on tax havens in the same way they come down on countries that trade with Iran and Cuba, we’d have no tax havens in the world.” Professor Ha-Joon Chang, University of Cambridge.

US Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is looking to work with finance ministers from around the world to agree on a global minimum tax rate for multinational corporations. This quiet effort has only just begun, but if successful it could prove among the most significant foreign policy and regulatory moves since the end of the Cold War.

This move is not without its challenges, and comes on the back of a round of recent competition by states to lower their corporate tax rates, which surprisingly saw France cut such levies under President Emmanuel Macron. Yet Britain has announced plans to buck this trend. The European Union has sought to restrict its own internal tax havens, and ensuring that technological multinationals pay their ‘fair share’ is a policy popular with all flavours of government from Canberra to Ottawa.

Perhaps the most underappreciated feature of the discussion thus far, however, is the carrots that the US can offer to other countries for their support for such an effort. The potential sticks – sanctions, tariffs and regulatory restrictions – are far better known, though at least until recently Washington has been hesitant to use these tools to target those it accuses of violating international business norms. It is unlikely that the Biden Administration will use such threats at this stage, though the precedent set by Trump’s actions on China means it cannot be ruled out that Washington will eventually use these tools for such purposes.

The key carrot also results from the US’ central role in international trade and financial markets. More significantly, Washington has already made ample, but quiet, use of the carrot over the last year. Specifically, the US Federal Reserve has offered ‘swap lines’ to key allies since last April, initially an effort to mitigate against the risk that the COVID-19 pandemic would cause a global debt crisis.

Historically, only very few countries – such as the UK – had access to such swap lines and they were only used to respond to the 2008 financial crisis. Today South Korea, Mexico, Singapore, and Brazil are among the biggest beneficiaries. If the US were to withdraw these lines, which would essentially mean that the Fed would treat local currency state debts as fungible with US debts, it would risk prompting a debt crisis. As a former Fed chair herself, Yellen is keenly aware of this.

Expect the US to offer making such swap lines permanent, in exchange for a global tax treaty.

Dollars and sense: Tobin tax’s latest turn
“This idea (of a financial transaction tax) has been around for a long time…I think frankly the experiences are mixed”. Former US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, 2009

Discussions of so-called Tobin taxes once dominated considerations of how states should respond to the Global Financial Crisis and Eurozone Crisis. A few years later, they again turned heads in response to the rise of high-frequency traders, which entered the mainstream with Michael Lewis’ 2014 book Flash Boys. The Tobin tax is also known as a financial transactions tax (FTT) and is essentially a levy charged on a securities trade, either a fixed charge or as a percent of the value of the security. The debate appears to be returning again.

Although France did enact such a tax in 2012 – charging 0.3% of the value of certain stock trades, and some high-frequency trades at the lower 0.01% rate – Europe has not followed suit, with only Finland instituting a similar tax. The United States continued to oppose such a policy as well, under both the Obama and Trump Administrations.

However, the Tobin tax has recently received some attention once again, due to the high-profile Game Stop market madness. This saw a small US video games’ retailer’s stock become among the most volatile financial assets in recent months, driven by day-trading users on increasingly popular share trading applications and platforms. These in turn are dependent on selling their order flow to high-frequency traders, who some blamed for causing massive losses for small retail investors when trading in Game Stop shares was first suspended in late January.

In February, the Chair of the Financial Services Committee, Maxine Waters (D-CA), said she was willing to consider such a move. The Congressional Budget Office’s prediction that a 0.1% securities transactions tax could raise as much as $777 billion over 10 years has helped it garner further support. House Democrats are now expected to propose exactly such a tax.

However, such a proposal has little-to-no-chance of advancing in the Senate. The Biden Administration is unlikely to spend political capital on such proposals. Coverage of the tax will only grow through the rest of this year as budget debates and structural economic reforms dominate in Washington. But as with previous proposals, this game too will soon peter out and stop.

Power play: Madrid’s Diaz Ayuso

“It bothers me enormously to lose, I can’t stand it. And I’ve spent many years, with some friends, devoting almost all of our political activity to thinking about how we can win”

Pablo Iglesias, Head of Podemos

Isabel Diaz Ayuso was little heralded when she assumed the presidency of the community of Madrid, the governorship of the greater capital region, in August 2019. She had to hobble together a coalition between her centre-right Popular Party (PP), and the then-rising centrist Ciudadanos faction, as well as the nationalist Vox party. In the election held that May, she led PP to win just 30 of 132 seats in the Chamber, finishing behind the Socialist Party (PSOE), and with Ciudadanos securing 26 seats. The result was the PP’s worst performance in Madrid’s regional elections since the fall of the Franco dictatorship.

A little over 18 months later, Diaz Ayuso has called snap elections that will now be held on 4 May. Nearly 35% of voters plan on backing her PP in the vote, up from 22.23% in 2019. She said she called the vote to prevent Ciudadanos from switching to an alliance with the PSOE. Meanwhile Ciudadanos, which won 19.46% last time around, is polling on the verge of falling below the 5% electoral threshold.

Diaz Ayuso’s likely success tells the story not just of her masterful management of Madrid’s politics, but also of her prominent public opposition to the national minority government of PSOE leader Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez. Sanchez ousted the PP government in 2018 in a series of parliamentary no-confidence votes and won the most votes in the two general elections held in 2019. However, the PP has never been able to form a majority coalition and remains dependent on left-leaning Catalan independence parties for support.

With pro-independence parties winning a majority of votes in Catalonia’s 11 February elections this year, but chafing at the PSOE’s first-place finish, it is more-likely-than-not that that another election will have to be called before December 2023. Pablo Casado, PP’s national leader, has failed to capitalise on Sanchez’s troubles, particularly his regular spats with his leftist coalition ally, Deputy Prime Minister Pablo Iglesias of the Podemos party.

Iglesias announced this week he will step down to lead Podemos in the Madrid elections, vowing to challenge Diaz Ayuso. He may be able to lift Podemos above the 5% threshold it appears at risk of falling below, but it will be Diaz Ayuso who uses the election as a platform to raise her national profile. She may well lead the PP ticket by the time the next general election is called.

Posted in UncategorisedTagged in , , , , ,

The Rt Hon Caroline Flint on managing change in business and politics

Sarah Sands spoke to The Rt Hon Caroline Flint about managing change in business and politics.

Given her former position as Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change and her current role as co-Chair of the “Getting to Zero” project for the “Onward” think tank, Caroline spoke about how businesses formulate and deliver their ESG strategies.

Listen to the replay of Sarah Sands in conversation with the Rt Hon Caroline Flint.

Speakers
The Rt Hon Caroline Flint, during twenty-two years as the Labour MP for Don Valley, Caroline Flint served six as a Government Minister and five years in the opposition Shadow Cabinet before joining the Commons Public Accounts Committee and the Intelligence & Security Committee. A familiar voice on news and current affairs programmes, Caroline has made numerous appearances on Question Time and Radio 4 Any Questions and is a regular political and policy commentator. She chairs the Advisory Board of the Institute for Prosperity, is an Advisory Board member for public service think tank Reform and an Associate for Global Partners Governance. Caroline co-chairs the ‘Getting to Zero’ project for the Onward think tank.

Sarah Sands is a Board Advisor at Hawthorn. Prior to this she was editor of the Today programme, Radio 4’s flagship news and current affairs programme. She was previously editor of the London Evening Standard, the first woman to edit The Sunday Telegraph and deputy editor of The Daily Telegraph. Sarah is an honorary fellow of Goldsmiths College, University of London, Lucy Cavendish College Cambridge and a visiting fellow to the Reuters Institute. She is chairwoman of the political think tank Bright Blue, a patron of National Citizen Service and was chair of the Women’s Prize for Fiction.

Posted in UncategorisedTagged in , , ,

Boundary review blues? A (r)evolutionary framework and Dutch days

Policy preview: boundary review blues
Britain is overdue for a parliamentary constituency boundary review. Two efforts to do so since 2010 were both ultimately abandoned, following opposition from both sides of the floor and amid the tumult of the 2016 Brexit vote and its aftermath. In 2021, however, the process is due to get off the ground, with potential major implications for the next general election.

The groundwork for the new boundaries has already been laid by the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill 2019-2021, which received Royal Assent last December. It abandoned previous plans to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600 and set the boundary review to be completed by mid-2023, on the basis of registered electorates from last December. Constituencies aim to be within 5 per cent of 73,393 voters, meaning that more than half of the current parliamentary constituencies will have to be redrawn.

This work is to be undertaken by the Boundary Commission, which is non-partisan. Nevertheless, the moves are certain to raise opposition from affected MPs and parties. These tensions may play out in relation to the centrifugal sentiment prevailing in parts of the UK, particularly Scotland, which is set to lose at least one, more likely two, of its 59 MPs. Wales may lose as many as eight of its current 40 seats (though the constituency of Ynys Mon / Anglesey was enshrined as a protected constituency in last year’s Parliamentary Constituencies Bill).

The redistribution of seats around urban-rural divides is likely to have the most significant impact on the political fortunes of the Conservative and Labour parties. While the continued trend towards urbanisation and growing population in London and other major cities may help Labour where new seats are created, population shifts in other areas may help the Conservatives. A number of so-called ‘Red Wall’ seats won by Prime Minister Boris Johnson in the 2019 election, in many cases bucking decades of consistent Labour victories, are areas that have seen population decline. While this means some seats may fall by the wayside entirely, the geographical footprint of the remaining constituencies is likely to expand, picking up rural and less-populated areas, where historically voters have been more Conservative-leaning.

Although Johnson has also vowed to do away with the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, his sizable majority means that it is more likely than not that the next election will only be held after the new seats come into effect.

Dollars and sense : A (r)evolutionary framework
In February, Zambia became the first country to request that it be allowed to restructure its debt under the so-called Common Framework. The nation’s fiscal and economic challenges are not new, and it had already fallen into default last November, setting the stage for a clash between its private creditors and China, by far Lusaka’s largest creditor, over how to make Zambia’s debt sustainable. The International Monetary Fund also started talks with the Zambian government last month, further complicating the picture. But it is the test of the Common Framework that will have the most far-reaching implications.

The Common Framework of the Group of 20 Nations is one of the various initiatives that governments have taken over the last year to help one another through the Covid-19 pandemic. The first major such effort – also organised through the G20, with the support of the IMF and World Bank – is the Debt Service Suspension Initiative (DSSI). This was launched last March and has seen debt repayments to the G20 creditors from 45 developing countries suspended, with a further 28 countries eligible for such relief.

The DSSI has been so significant because China has agreed to take part, although it had historically refused to cooperate with the informal grouping of mostly Western creditors known as the Paris Club. There has been significant concern in recent years over Beijing’s use of ‘debt trap diplomacy’ following its assumption of control of the Hambantota port in Sri Lanka, strategically located in the Indian Ocean, in 2017, but fears that the pandemic would see it seek to escalate such efforts have so far proven unfounded.

The Common Framework was announced at last November’s G20 Summit in Saudi Arabia and builds on the DSSI by establishing a unified set of rules for how sovereign nations’ debts such be restructured. Though the summit was held largely virtually due to the pandemic, supporters of the framework have insisted that support for it among G20 members is strong and unified. They will have to be for the framework to succeed. There has never before been lasting international agreement on sovereign debts, despite repeated attempts to set up a sovereign bankruptcy court. is Zambia presents a strong early test case for the Common Framework.

Private holders of Zambia’s bonds have telegraphed that they hold a blocking share of the debt, which could hinder any restructuring. They have demanded the terms of Chinese debt restructuring be disclosed before agreeing to any of their own. The Common Framework should enable this, although Beijing has demurred from publicly stating how its loans to Zambia are even constituted. If the Common Framework can even make moderate progress in bridging this gap, however, it may prove a key tool in government bankruptcies, particularly in the developing world, going forward.

Power play: Dutch days
Dutch voters go to the polls on 17 March, following the resignation of Prime Minister Mark Rutte’s government in January, prompted by the revelation that it wrongly accused thousands of families of welfare fraud. However, Rutte’s People’s Party for Freedom (VVD) has only built its lead in polls in subsequent weeks. 35% of voters appear poised to vote for the VVD, up from the 21.3% it received in 2017. Only Geert Wilders’ far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) is also above 20 per cent in the polls, and then just barely, but as with other previous Dutch elections, most other parties have ruled out considering a coalition with the PVV.

Rutte therefore appears set to head another government, almost 11 years after he first became prime minister. With German Chancellor Angela Merkel not standing for re-election as chancellor in Germany’s federal elections, expected on 26 September, Rutte is poised to become the elder statesman of the European Union.

If Rutte’s VVD performs as well as current polls predict, it will have its choice of coalition partners, but the most natural allies would be those with whom he formed the previous government and who have overseen the interim cabinet in the run-up to the current vote. These are the liberal D66. centre-right Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) and centrist Christian Union. Some polls indicate the CDA will win enough votes to open up the possibility of a two-party coalition between the VVD and CDA. The centre-left and left are unlikely to play a major role at all, with the Dutch Labour Party (PvdA) a shadow of its former self, having never recovered from the global financial crisis and Eurozone crisis.

Heading a unified centre-right government would set the stage for a more conservative agenda, and if past evidence is any indication, Rutte would likely seek to carry this over into his unofficial role as Europe’s elder statesman (and formally on to the European Council, which guides the EU’s policy agenda). Rutte’s governments had traditionally been allies of the British in their opposition to the idea of ‘ever closer union’ while the UK was still an EU member. More recently, he led resistance to the ‘coronabonds’ mutualising EU debt amongst members, and if a government of only his centre-right allies, would further increase support for Dutch leadership of the ‘Frugal Four’ within the EU. With Merkel set to leave the scene, and Rutte set to secure his position, Europe’s leadership itself may soon be changing to a more cautious tack.

Posted in UncategorisedTagged in , , , ,

Net neutrality and the war over internet regulations, a tin coup and ambassadorial ambitions

Policy preview: net neutrality and the internet regulation fight
Perhaps the greatest US regulatory battle of the last decade – even more significant than the political fights around emissions targets or banking regulations – has been the fight over so-called ‘net neutrality.’ The term refers to the principle that internet service providers (ISPs such as AT&T and Comcast) treat all data fairly and do not throttle or accelerate speed for certain upstream or downstream actions. President Joe Biden pledged to restore the policy, but the path will not be as clear as he hopes. Net neutrality falls under the provisions of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – which also oversees the implementation of other increasingly controversial regulations such as the Section 230 rules on whether social media companies bear responsibility for the content they share. The fight over the FCC and net neutrality has only begun.

The Obama administration’s FCC put net neutrality at the core of its tech agenda. Proponents have credited it with enabling the growth of the tech giants Facebook, Amazon, Netflix and Google, collectively known, alongside Apple, as FAANG. Republicans opposed the policy as limiting market options and raising costs for consumers, and Trump’s appointee to head the FCC, Ajit Pai, moved to unwind net neutrality from the outset of the Trump administration. Pai surprisingly announced last November that he would resign at the end of Trump’s term. He duly did so and Biden appointed Pai’s fiercest critic, Jessica Rosenworcel, as acting chair.

The FCC is overseen by five commissioners. Following Pai’s resignation, the body is evenly divided, with two Republicans and two Democrats, including Rosenworcel, with a drawn-out appointment fight all-but-certain over the fifth. Biden’s supporters, and allies in the tech sector, have already called for the resumption of net neutrality. ISPs have largely opposed it. But issues around Section 230 and internet regulation more broadly have come to the fore of the political debate in light of ex-president Donald Trump’s criticism of social media companies, the 6 January attempt by to storm Congress, and the role of tech platforms in the election and in spreading misinformation.

The Republican party can use the debate around FCC nominations to wrest control over the narrative of these issues, at least on their side of the aisle, from Trump himself. The narrow Democratic control of the Senate enables them even to hope for political victory on the appointments and to stymie Democratic attempts to shrine net neutrality into law. The battle over internet regulation has only just begun.

Dollars and sense: a tin coup
On 1 February, global tin prices surged to a new high, reaching levels not seen since early 2014. Tin has surged on the back of the global commodities boom witnessed over the last half-year, with the COVID-19 pandemic proving little challenge to metals’ best performance in years. Prices in numerous metals have already topped market expectations for the year, though there are concerns that headwinds will emerge if Beijing dials down spending later this year – a rather widely-held assumption.

In particular, there is the potential for major further volatility in tin markets. China is the world’s largest refiner as well as the largest miner of tin ore. If China does rebalance expenditures, the commodity may be particularly affected by declining demand. China’s 2019 shift to emphasize production of higher-value goods and the trade war helped see Indonesia’s PT Timah replace China’s Yunnan Tin as the world’s largest refined tin producer.

But while Beijing is the driving force of global tin production, it is only one of the Asian countries with sizable stores of tin ore, with Indonesia, Malaysia and Myanmar also major mining hubs. Data on tin production in Myanmar is particularly difficult to pin down, given the fact that many of the country’s largest mines are in territory along the Chinese border under the effective control of local militaries who frequently clash with the Myanmar military. Nevertheless, the US Geological Survey estimates it to be the third largest producer of tin ore, responsible for just over 14% of global production.

The 1 February coup in Myanmar threatens to recast the domestic environment in the country. The Western response is likely to include sanctions and a push away from businesses linked to the military, with Myanmar moving closer to China – which holds no qualms over the anti-democratic nature of the coup. Beijing could pressure the forces along its border back into talks with the Burmese military, should it so desire, including by using tin sales as leverage. In the early days it appears as if the Burmese military has already consolidated power but this is by no means guaranteed. Aung Sang Suu Kyi and the country’s democratic forces have already held some degree power for five years, and they will be loathe to give it up entirely – a statement attributed to Suu Kyi leaked in the aftermath of the coup called on the people to defend their nascent democracy.

While 2021 is already being seen by many as a boon year for commodities across the world, events in Myanmar risk superseding global market dynamics when it comes to tin prices.

Power play: ambassadorial ambitions
The announcement of Sir George Hollingbery as the incoming ambassador to Cuba has raised eyebrows, least of all because while the move was announced on 22 January, he will only take up the post in 2022. The move is even more of radical departure from standard practice at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) in that Hollingbery is not a career diplomat, but rather a former Conservative MP, having represented the Meon Valley from 2010 until he stood down ahead of the 2019 general election. His appointment has set aflutter rumours about plans to change the nature of the UK’s diplomatic core.

The move was criticised by the civil servants’ union, the FCA, and in response the FCDO pointed out that Hollingbery is my no means the first such appointment. Indeed, many politicians swapped roles as ambassadors in the 19th century, even if such appointments have been relatively uncommon in the United Kingdom over the last seventy years.

While the diplomatic core and civil service are resistant to such moves, there is evidence that political appointments can be effective. This has particularly been the case with Her Majesty’s Ambassador in Washington, D.C., where political appointees have been relatively common, from ex-Labour MP John Freeman, later an editor of the New Statesman before being named ambassador, to Peter Jay, the son-in-law of then-prime minister James Callaghan. Both were perceived to have managed.

Another recent political appointment has been received with aplomb, that of Edward Llewellyn, named as Her Majesty’s Ambassador to France in 2016. He too came from outside the diplomatic core, having held a number of political roles including Chief of Staff to David Cameron. Hollingbery was in government under both Cameron and his successor, Theresa May, for whom he served as Parliamentary Private Secretary. While there has been significant criticism domestically and abroad of the US practice of appointing political (donor) ambassadors, these appointments are very much not in the same light.

It is unlikely that the appointment of political ambassadors will become de rigueur. But there is an argument to be made that delicate relationships can at times best be handled by those who have the ear of decision makers in their own capital, to whom their competence is known. We may just see a handful more appointments that put this thesis to the test.

Posted in UncategorisedTagged in , , , ,

Putting the green in German, the future of working from home and New York’s next star?

Policy preview: putting the green in German
“Germany is Europe’s heart.” Yanis Varoufakis, former Greek Finance Minister

German voters are set to go to the polls by 26 September, in elections that have garnered significant attraction because Chancellor Angela Merkel will not be the lead candidate of her Christian Democratic Union (CDU) for the first time since 2005. At the helm of various coalitions in that time with the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD) or the libertarian-leaning Free Democrats (FDP), Merkel’s coalition deal-making has been an underappreciated feature of her political nous. Her successor as party leader Armin Laschet also has shown the necessary coalition-building skill to be an effective premier, brining in the FDP to form a regional government in North Rhine-Westphalia following the state’s 2017 vote.

However, if polls are accurate, the September election will throw up new coalition possibilities heretofore unseen in German politics at the federal level. The reason for this is two-fold, first the rise of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which all other parliamentary German parties have placed a ‘cordon sanitaire’ over that is unlikely to be lifted anytime soon. The second factor is the rise of the Green Party, which has sapped votes from both the CDU and the SPD. In many polls in now leads the latter and could well become the second-largest party in the Bundestag come October.

The Greens will have clear environmental demands. However, less attention has been paid to the fact that the Green Party is expressly in favour of the further mutualisation of European borrowing and has little regard for the ‘Black Zero’ policy of balanced budgets that held throughout so many Merkel governments until the COVID-19 crisis. In fact, the speed with which Germany has abandoned both this domestic borrowing policy and its reticence to mutualised European debt marks a profound paradigm shift not just in German politics, but for all of Europe.

Whether the Greens negotiate with the CDU and its more-conservative Bavarian sister party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), or with the SPD, as to forming a coalition, expect it to demand an explicit endorsement for further European financial federalisation, and for stimulus packages inspired by the recent Biden Administration package. The latter is a more natural coalition partner, though it would likely require the pair to at the least also bring in the FDP or the Left, more likely both, a daunting challenge. A Green-CDU coalition is therefore more likely, but for this to be successful it would have to cast off the remaining vestiges of Euro-trepidation that marked previous Merkel governments.

Dollars and sense: the future of working from home
“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidise it.” US President Ronald Reagan.

For many readers in the UK, and much of the rest of the Western world, it has been over a year since daily attendance at the office place was expected. Some have enjoyed the comforts of home; others eagerly await escaping its confines. How and when to support, advocate, and demand a return to the office remains a politicised question, and one on which no consensus has yet emerged, even in the UK where half of all adults have now had at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine.

It is little surprise that there appears to be growing demand for guidance or an answer on what the future of work-from-home will look like. The scale and the extent to which last year’s normal becomes ‘the new normal’ will have major ramifications not just for individual employers, but for public transportation and its finances, for the values of commercial prime real estate, and even for graduates coming out of university, amongst many others.

There is, however, no one-size-fits-all answer for how to reincorporate office life into the work routine for those able to work-from-home. As it is judged safe to do so, individuals keen to return to the office will begin to do so – in some places, particularly the United States – this is already well underway. Others may well seek to retain their home offices a while yet, and some even seek to make them permanent. There had been a slow trend of increased work-from-home practices in recent years already, the pandemic simply gave it the mass testing needed for acceptance, rather than hesitancy to become the standard.

That is not to say that we are entering a work-from-wherever-one-likes world. Taxes so often based on residency and place of employment will complicate the dreams of many would-be digital nomads. In that same vein, expect governments to institute programmes aimed at maximising the benefits of the increased number of people seeking to work from home. These will very from country to country, but examples ae already appearing on the horizon. In Spain where rural depopulation has been a trend for decades, discussion is already underway on how to incentivise some employees to stay outside the cities. In the UK, government minds are aflutter with discussion over how to link the benefits of increased work-from-home with its ‘levelling up’ agenda.

One certainty is that work-from-home numbers will increase, even if the extent is unclear. But even small changes on the margins can reshape the economy.

London has a workforce of 5.2 million, whereas Birmingham, the UK’s second largest city, has just half-a-million. If just one in five working Londoners, spends one day a week working outside London, it will be the equivalent of distributing all of Birmingham’s work force across the country. Governments will be keen to ensure they can manage the distribution of that pie.

Power play: New York’s next star?
“I don’t care who does the electing as long as I get to do the nominating”. William ‘Boss’ Tweed, former head of New York’s ‘Tammany Hall’ political machine

The last year has proven to be one of extreme turbulence for New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. Initially hailed on the left side of the US political aisle, and even on occasion by Republicans for his stewardship of the COVID-19 pandemic in his state, now facing bipartisan calls for his resignation over sexual harassment allegations. His great rival, fellow Democrat Bill de Blasio, saw his presidential campaign flop even before the first primary – and he will be replaced in the November New York mayoral election. De Blasio is all-but-certain to carry one of the lowest-ever approval ratings for a New York mayor on his way out of office.

While Cuomo has vowed to fight on, and at the end of March brokered an agreement in the State Legislature to legalise cannabis – a move many have correctly identified as a ploy to make good on an often discarded campaign pledge to regain some popularity – he may well still be forced to give up plans to run for a fourth term as governor in 2022.

New York needs a new political star. It has a long tradition of creating such creatures, even before it served as a springboard for Donald Trump’s rise to celebrity and then politics. Trump’s departure from the city predated De Blasio and Cuomo but was solidified when he announced he would move to Florida after his presidency, with the threat of state criminal investigations and his family’s unpopularity amongst the city’s social elite key factors in pushing him out. The pull of New York City on the state means that anyone looking to find their way up in state politics is likely to have to come from the left of the aisle, as with Cuomo and De Blasio.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez goes some way to filling the gap, though her profile is more national than regional given she how she has used her seat in the House of Representatives to campaign for a left-leaning progressive agenda. The New York City mayoral election provides the most natural proving ground for any aspirant-star, and former presidential candidate Andrew Yang has eagerly seized the mantle. He holds a narrow, but steady, lead in the polls for the 21 June Democratic primary.

Yang may well prove to be the man of the hour. However, one of his closest competitors is Scott Stringer, currently New York’s Comptroller, known for his mastery of the Democratic Party machine. The primary vote will be the first to determine the winner through ranked-choice voting. With some 50% of voters still undecided according to the latest vote, and Stringer’s experience in local organising, he may well prove victorious. A weakened Cuomo would be little match for a victorious Stringer, whereas Yang has little experience with the local Democratic Party. New York may soon be Stringer’s oyster.

Posted in UncategorisedTagged in , , , , ,

The forthcoming filibuster fight, leaseholds and cladding and Israel’s once-and-future kingmaker

Policy preview: the forthcoming filibuster fight
The US Senate’s ability to only corral 57 votes to convict Donald Trump on impeachment charges on 13 February highlights the incredibly high bar needed to pass major legislation, with 60 votes in the Senate required to end the filibuster. There have been repeated tweaks to Senate rules over the last two presidencies – with Democrats doing away with the filibuster for most judicial appointments when Barack Obama was president and Republicans expanding this to include Supreme Court nominees under Donald Trump. The legislative filibuster, however, has remained in place, despite attracting far more controversy than all others combined, with both parties fearing that the other will ram through legislation as soon as it retakes narrow control of Congress and the White House.

Now that Democrats have precisely that narrow control, the Biden administration has been muted on calls to end the filibuster. Moderate Senate Democrats such as West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, Arizona’s Kyrsten Sinema and even California’s Dianne Feinstein have pledged to retain the filibuster, so although the Democrats could technically jettison the rule with just a majority vote, there is not yet a path to do so.

Progressive activists, many of whom have long campaigned for the filibuster’s abolition, have remained surprisingly quiet over the matter to date. But that belies the strategy they have adopted to seek to push the change through. Amongst left-leaning and Democratic activist circles in Washington D.C., efforts are underway to revive a bill first introduced to the previous Congress – dubbed House Resolution 1, or HR1 – and to use its passage as a cri de cœur to abolish the filibuster once and for all.

Democrats easily passed HR1 in 2020, but Republicans who still held the majority barred it from even being considered in the Senate. The bill is essentially a wish list of Democratic party goals: regularised mail balloting, expanded voter registration, campaign finance reform and reforming the uber-partisan and increasingly controversial congressional redistricting process. After the dust settles on Trump’s impeachment, and once Biden’s administration is in place, Democrats will reintroduce the bill. It may be packed with even more radical – but broadly popular – sweeteners, such as authorising a pathway to statehood for Washington D.C. and Puerto Rico, in an effort to show that while such legislation polls extremely well, it cannot get through the Senate while the filibuster remains.

Later this year – either in the summer or, more likely, the autumn – Democrats will push the package, not in an effort to bring Republicans on board, but to convince the aforementioned Senate holdouts to abandon the filibuster. If they succeed, it will radically reshape US politics forever. If – as is more likely than not – they fail, the opening of a rift within the Democratic Party may finally create room for moderate Republicans to emerge as leaders of the opposition after four years of being stifled by Donald Trump.

Dollars and sense: leasehold and cladding challenges
The lockdowns and government policies announced in the wake of COVID-19 make clear that real estate and housing remain at the core of Britain’s economy. Estate agents’ offices have been one of the only non-healthcare or essential service industries to remain open throughout the latest lockdown, and the stamp duty holiday announced by Chancellor Rishi Sunak has helped drive transaction volume to a 13-year high, despite the pandemic. Two key pillars of housing policy, however, have proven politically contentious and vexing to the government, though by tackling them together it may just find a pathway forward.

First is the issue of cladding, which has become something of a national scandal as thousands of buildings were found to contain hazardous or non-standard material in the investigations launched after the Grenfell Tower tragedy in 2017, which left 72 dead. Second is the issue of leasehold reform, something the Conservate Party has dabbled with since even before Margaret Thatcher’s Right to Buy reforms were launched in 1980. Proving it can be done, Scotland has effectively eliminated leaseholds over the last two decades.

The government has set in motion processes to address both issues over the last few weeks. On 11 February, the government announced £3.5 billion in funds to remove unsafe cladding from buildings over 18 metres high, and a loan programme for flat-owners in shorter buildings aimed at capping the cost of refurbishment work at no more than £50 per flat per month. On 7 January, Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick announced a plan to allow leaseholders to extend their leaseholds by 990 years, up from 90 for flats, and 50 for houses, at zero ground rent.

The overwhelming majority of flat-owners, and particularly those in multi-family houses, i.e. those affected by the issues with cladding, are leaseholders, not freeholders. Aiming to smooth the process, the government’s leasehold reform also includes a policy of abolishing calculations of ‘marriage value’, which had aimed to reflect the greater combined value of a freehold held with a leasehold. The right to extend without ground rents aims to counter the recent trebling of many such charges at recently developed leasehold properties and incentivises leaseholders to extend by lowering their annual costs.

The millions living in properties affected by cladding issues have argued the government’s new repair fund is insufficient, and that it fails to reflect higher insurance costs they have had and will continue to bear as repair work is underway. There are already quiet rumblings of what more can be done.

One suggestion that appears to be gaining traction is for the government to buy out freeholds and transfer them to non-profit companies, allowing leaseholders to obtain a proportionate interest in them when they extend their lease. Taking on the cost of doing so for properties affected by cladding, or at least those uncovered by the current fund, may just provide the government with an opportunity to make major progress on leasehold reform and mitigate the cladding issue’s ability to further disrupt real estate markets, particularly for new builds.

Power play: Israel’s once-and-future kingmaker
Israelis go to the polls on 23 March, the country’s fourth election in two years. The vote is widely seen as yet another referendum on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has narrowly held on through the last three votes by forming ever-shifting coalitions, most recently with the Blue and White Party of Benny Gantz, who had vowed before the last election never to countenance such a government and lost most of his own allies in agreeing to the coalition.

Netanyahu has received plaudits for his management of relations with Israel’s Arab neighbours and getting the Trump Administration to recognise the annexation of the Golan Heights and Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. He heads into the vote on the back of arguably the world’s most successful COVID-19 vaccination programme to date. However, he is also embroiled in a long-running corruption scandal and has faced allegations of putting his interests before the nation’s. Netanyahu’s Likud Party is expected to win the most seats, but current predictions show the conservative parties he has traditionally aligned with well short of a parliamentary majority. Gideon Saar, who unsuccessfully challenged Netanyahu for the Likud leadership in 2019, quit the party last year and his New Hope party goes into the elections as one of Netanyahu’s strongest challengers. Yet even if the Saar-Netanyahu split can be healed, seat predictions suggest they will be short of a majority.

Netanyahu’s fate may therefore very well be determined by another jilted former coalition partner, Avigdor Lieberman. A Russian immigrant and former nightclub bouncer, the populist Lieberman has often been dubbed ‘Israel’s Trump’. He has vowed never to sit in a government backed by the Arab Joint List, but also bitterly opposes the military service exemptions for the ultra-Orthodox and has arguably become Netanyahu’s fiercest public foe despite previously serving as his deputy prime minister, foreign minister and defence minister, among other posts.

Lieberman’s refusal after the March 2020 election to join a coalition led by Netanyahu or back the only other viable alternative – a Blue and White-led government backed by the Joint List – forced the brief and tempestuous marriage between Netanyahu and Gantz. Burned by the experience, Gantz’s party is at risk of falling out of the Israeli legislature altogether in the next vote and certain not to countenance renewed support for Netanyahu.

Although Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party is expected to only win seven or so of the Knesset’s 120 seats, expect Lieberman to dominate coalition discussions. His positions may just prove sufficiently intransigent as to force yet another election.

Posted in UncategorisedTagged in , , , , ,

Monetary policy and the Treasury, trust and the Troika and spotlight on the Senate Parliamentarian

Policy preview: monetary policy and the Treasury
Indications of government policy do not always come from ministers briefing journalists or from whispers in Whitehall – occasionally they come via the civil service’s job board. To that effect, earlier this month HM Treasury posted a call for applicants for a new role as the department’s Head of Monetary Policy. While the posting may seem anodyne, it in fact raises serious question about how Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak view the independence of the Bank of England.

Monetary policy is traditionally the remit of central banks. Economic orthodoxy for most of the last century has held that central banks’ ability to set monetary policy independently of the government is crucial to ensuring the long-term economic stability. The thinking has long been that if governments had the ability to set interest rates, they would be motivated to do so in a myopic manner designed to boost their electoral performances, such as by slashing interest rates to stimulate growth ahead of elections.

The breakdown in the relationship between unemployment, interest rates, and inflation – which has failed to run at an average of 2 percent or higher in developed economies despite over a decade of near-zero interest rates – has left many economists scratching their heads. However, so long as serious deflation is avoided, there are not many political opponents of low inflation. Yet concerns abound about how the poorly understood nature of this relationship is impacting monetary policy, most clearly evidenced by the conclusion issued by the Independent Evaluation Office on 13 January that the Bank of England did not have an explanation for how its quantitative easing policy worked, hindering its ability to build “public understanding and trust” in the programme.

Given the centrality of quantitative easing to not only the UK’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic impact but that of every other major central bank, renewing research efforts regarding monetary policy is indeed something that the Treasury and other Finance Ministries should prioritise. While the QE that followed the global financial crisis failed to result in inflation, the government has a responsibility to not just assume it will continue to have a non-inflationary impact.

The pandemic portends a crisis driven by a downturn in the real economy, whereas the post-2009 economic impact was demonstrative of the financial economy’s ability to precipitate a crisis in the real economy. Modelling how monetary policy may respond – in the face of renewed inflation or if it continues to remain absent – will be central to developing the government’s decision on whether austerity or continued deficit spending is preferable in the pandemic’s aftermath. The Bank of England’s independence will not go away, but with monetary policy to set to remain the driving tool in shaping the economy, the Treasury official tasked with interpreting its impact will prove extremely influential.

Dollars and sense: trust and the Troika
The global container shipping industry stands in a remarkably healthy position as the rollout of a number of vaccines means there is an end to the COVID-19 pandemic on the horizon. After being caught up in market turbulence as the virus spread across the world in the first quarter of 2020, shipping rates recovered substantially in the second half of 2020. As an billions faced unprecedented lockdowns, one common theme emerged – they still wanted to consume even if they could not venture out or splurge on services.

The resulting demand has proven a boon to the shipping industry, which had faced a torrid decade in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. Global trade peaked as a share of GDP in 2008 and has not recovered even as the world appeared to have put the worst impacts of the global financial crisis behind it before the pandemic and the industry was hampered by overinvestment on extremely large container ships that proved less adaptable to the new economic paradigms that emerged. Dozens of major businesses filed for bankruptcy, leading to industry-wide consolidation.

Some 85 percent of global container shipping is now controlled by three shipping alliances. Maersk and Mediterranean Shipping operate an alliance responsible for roughly one-third of container shipping. China Ocean Shipping Company, France’s CMA CGM and Taiwan’s Evergreen make up another alliance, responsible for nearly another third. The tie-up between Hapag-Lloyd and Ocean Network Express, Yang Min and Hyundai Merchant Marine controls another 20 percent.

If the promise of vaccines bears fruit, these firms stand to benefit further. Little new investment into container shipping has been made from outside these alliances as financing has proven hard to come by and the capacity glut caused by the long time-horizon of ship-construction has only begun to fade away.

Meanwhile the demand for shipping is likely to grow further as manufacturers seek to prioritise optionality, constructing multiple supply chains to hedge against the risk of further trade wars. While such a scenario should spell a return to boon times for the industry, the sector’s consolidation raises the spectre of renewed scrutiny.

In 2017, the US Department of Justice launched an antitrust probe into the global shipping industry. It quietly dropped the investigation in 2019, a result of political pressure and concerns that action could further strain the impact of trade tensions. While such a new probe is not likely until the pandemic is in the rear-view mirror, expect regulators in Washington and elsewhere to re-examine the industry’s competitiveness over the coming years.

Power play: spotlight on the Senate Parliamentarian

The post of US Senate Parliamentarian rarely garners significant attention. The officeholder’s role is to interpret the Senate’s own standing rules as well as its ethics and practices. Only six people have held the post since it was introduced in 1935. The incumbent, Eizabeth MacDonough, has held the post since 2012 when she replaced Alan Frumin, under whom she had previously served as senior assistant parliamentarian. The 50-50 divide between seats held by Republicans and those held by Democrats in the Senate, however, will see the role take on a significance not seen in the 20 years at least until the 2022 midterm elections.

MacDonough is not seen as party-political. Appointed by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, she was retained in the post by Mitch McConnell after Republicans took the Senate majority in 2014.

MacDonough may have successfully navigated the increasingly poisonous political environment in the Senate in recent years, but her largest challenges are still to come. Perhaps the parliamentarians’ most influential role relates to the interpretation of the so-called Byrd Rule, a longstanding Senate convention that allows certain bills to be approved by a simple majority rather than the 60-vote threshold required to overcome a single senator’s filibuster. Legislation is only eligible for passage under the simple majority if its primary impact is on government outlays, typically over the next ten years, rather than policy.

MacDonough faced a handful of rebukes from those on the Republican party’s right wing in recent years as they sought to repeal the Affordable Care Act through such a simple majority, which she ruled against. However, the ruling that most portends events in the coming Congress was the approval, then denial, of a motion brought by Republican Senator Josh Hawley last June. She initially ruled in favour of a move that he had brought requiring a Senate vote on withdrawing from the World Trade Organzation last June, although it rested on a technicality. Yet two weeks later she reversed her position, after the senior Republican and Democratic Senators on the Senate Finance Committee shared a new analysis of the move.

Hawley has since become a household name in the past month for his vocal endorsement of attempts to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s win in the November 2020 election. He has refused to apologise for his perceived role in fomenting unrest at the Capitol on 6 January, having welcomed the crowd as it gathered outside Congress. Hawley and his allies are likely to further seek to challenge the Senate’s established practices, and potentially seek to politicise the parliamentarian’s role. The fact Democrats lack a substantive majority, relying on incoming Vice President Kamala Harris, to serve as the tie-breaker will only heighten the importance of MacDonough’s interpretations of the Byrd rule and other Senate procedures.

Posted in UncategorisedTagged in , , , , , ,

Return of the World Trade Organisation, Europe’s lithium litmus test and offshore national security

Policy Preview: Return of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)
US President-elect Joe Biden will seek to rebuild the global trade infrastructure that Donald Trump has sought to dismantle – starting with the World Trade Organisation. Not too long ago, the body was the core international trade institution, but the Trump Administration effectively neutered its ability to hear disputes by refusing to support the appointment of new judges to its appellate body. Three are required to hear disputes, but currently just one is in office. Just before the election, the White House also blocked the appointment of Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, a former Nigerian finance minister and World Bank economist, as the WTO’s director general.

Expect the Biden Administration to back Okonjo-Iweala’s appointment within weeks of the 20 January 2021 inauguration. It will also begin negotiations with the bloc’s other member – including China – about the appointment of new appellate judges. This will not be straightforward – Democrats and Republicans alike have long voiced concern over the WTO court’s handling of dumping issues as well as the slow nature of the process. The Obama Administration also blocked new appointments to the court in the second term as a result.

Biden has made it clear that he does not envisage new trade agreements as a priority – and as discussed in the previous Hawthorn Horizons, Republicans may still deny him the opportunity to pursue such pacts if expedited trade authority is not renewed before its June 2021 expiration. However, the past four years have highlighted the fragility the Western-led international institutions built up over the last seventy years are, particularly when they are under threat from within the West itself.

Reforming the WTO is likely a non-starter, the same challenges with expedited trade authority would still apply and Beijing’s ability to exert leverage over the other 162 members regarding the terms of any new deal is far greater than when it joined the bloc in 2001. But the Biden Administration will act on his comments to support the ‘rules based international order,’ and strengthening the WTO will prove essential to this agenda.

Ironically, Trump’s own tariff actions may have given the Biden Administration the leverage to also secure appointments it considers more favourable. If the appellate courts are reinstated, even the most US-friendly arbitrators would likely eventually find that these tariffs violate WTO rules. But China and other countries are keener to have them lifted than the Biden Administration will be. Removing these tariffs in exchange for appointing friendly appellate judges, restoring the WTO’s dispute-resolution function, is a bargain that Biden’s team will see as making sense for all sides.

Dollars and sense: Europe’s lithium litmus test
The European Union has for nearly a decade operated a ‘critical raw materials strategy’ aimed at shoring up access to and developing sources of key commodities. It has long been seen as ineffectual and now faces arguably its greatest challenge yet, following the inclusion this year of lithium for the first time. The increase in secure supply needed is drastic, EU Commissioner Maros Sefcovic in September decaled that the bloc “would need up to 18 times more lithium by 2030 and up to 60 times more by 2050”.

Lithium is the key to the battery and energy storage industries, hence the expectation for a rampant increase in demand. However, it has not been found in commercially-viable quantities within the EU anywhere other than Portugal’s Barroso mountains. Two mining concessions have been granted, one to UK-listed Savannah Resources and to Portugal’s own Lusorecursos. Yet the project has faced significant resistance from local residents and various Portuguese NGOs. They have also sought to block still-in-development plans to build lithium refineries in the region, necessary to enable the metal’s use in batteries.

Portugal’s government has repeatedly stated that it intends to get the approval of the lithium mines finalised, and Prime Minister Antonio Costa has endorsed the EU’s agenda wholeheartedly. However, after Costa’s Socialists won the 2019 election, securing 106 of the lower house’s 230 seats, they did not continue the support pact they previously struck with the Communists and Left Bloc.. Instead, these two far-left groups provide the government with support on a bill-by-bill basis. It is also occasionally backed by the environmentalist PAN and Green parties, which hold another five seats combined. To continue the development of the country’s lithium prospects, Costa will not be able to rely on these allies, who all oppose lithium extraction. And while the main opposition centre-right Social Democrats (PSD) do support lithium extraction, the extent of this does not extend to a willingness to support Costa.

Costa’s government is already facing challenges – it passed its 2021 budget on 26 November only after the Communists agreed to abstain; all other parties voted against, even after Costa agreed a new environmental review process, including for lithium projects, earlier in the week. Yet there is little chance the left will seek to a new confidence vote over the next six months, given Portugal’s assumption of the EU presidency in January. Costa’s priorities will be enacting reforms to the bloc’s fiscal and economic union that have dominated the past year, and the left will be unwilling to give these up. The EU’s critical resource strategy may remain ineffective in and of itself, but the fortuitous timing of the rotating presidency will give it a much-needed boost. Expect Lisbon to finalise a new law sharing revenues with municipalities and for ground on key projects to be broken by the end of 2021.

Power play: offshore national security
The 11 November publication of the UK’s National Security and Investment Bill (NSIB) laid out the processes by which the government will review inbound foreign investment, and the requirements for UK firms in certain sectors to notify the state about proposed foreign takeovers. Its passage through parliament is all-but assured, and it is expected to become law early next year. The new powers it grants the government will almost entirely be invested in the Secretary of State for Business, Environment and Industrial Strategy (BEIS), currently Alok Sharma. Unlike the US’ Committee on Foreign Investment (CFIUS), which provides a recommendation to the president who then makes the final decision, the NSIB in its present form grants this power to the Secretary of State, not the prime minister.

But even before the introduction of the NSIB, the government signalled its intention to take a more proactive stance on such interventions. In December 2019 then-Secretary Andrea Leadsom announced a review of the Chinese-owned Gardner Aerospace Holding’s attempt to purchase aerospace components manufacturer Impcross. Leadsom also reviewed US private equity firm Advent’s purchase of another defence firm, Cobham, though it was relatively swiftly approved. Gardner on the other hand abandoned its takeover in September, in response to the government scrutiny.

In other words, the new process and requirements for foreign takeovers contained in the NSIB are its most significant components.

The legislation does require such interventions consider acquirer risk, but also for firms in sensitive industries to pre-emptively disclose potential takeovers. Furthermore, the structure of the takeover has to be considered by the Secretary of State in any review.

In the debate over the bill, Sharma noted that “those who seek to do us harm have found novel ways to bypass our current regime by either structuring a deal in such a manner that it is difficult to identify the ultimate owner of the investment, or by funnelling investment through a UK or ally investment fund”. There is a growing recognition of the importance of the structure of any takeover, not just in the UK. The legislation underlining the US’ 2021 defence budget, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), is set to pass in the coming weeks and sources close to the process have said it too will include expanded reviews for the offshore control of companies seeking to invest in the US.

Once NSIB becomes law, Sharma’s approach will set the precedent for how the legislation is applied. A loyal supporter of Prime Minister Boris Johnson, his approach will not stray far from the government’s messaging, yet the NSIB does grant the power for Sharma to review changes in ownership even before majority control is established, as well as after the fact. The extent to which he applies these powers over offshore ownership may have a great influence over sectors far beyond defence.

Posted in UncategorisedTagged in , , , , ,

The other transition deal, stage set for surge of sovereign lawsuits and the man reshaping Treasury’s tools

Policy Preview: The UK’s other transition deal
On 14 December, the UK Government released its much-awaited Energy White Paper, laying out a simultaneous pledge to seek a net-zero basin for the UK Continental Shelf by 2050 and the pioneering of “a new British industry dedicated to (carbon) capture and return under the North Sea”. No mean feat by any measure, and the debates on how to achieve this remains very much under wraps. Yet, the paper did give the Government one deadline, agreeing a ‘North Sea Transition Deal’ in the first half of 2021.

A more bankable date arguably is 1 November 2021, when the UN Climate Change Conference in Glasgow kicks off – a key event that Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, believes can be used to recast his global image. Regardless of timing, however, what the White Paper and other recent government statements have made clear is that the transition – deal or no deal – will be painful.

One area of hope has been the Government’s spending plans, particularly the £1 billion fund Johnson announced last month for establishing carbon capture, utilisation, and storage (CCUS) facilities in four “SuperPlaces” (the Government’s term). However, only one will be in Scotland, the hub of the UK’s existing offshore energy industry. The outlook for support for legacy industries there is poor. The White Paper explicitly states that, “Government support is in the context of our net zero target”. The only policy directly tied to the offshore fields is Government’s commitment to seeking the North Sea Transition Deal include an end all routine flaring by 2030.

The sole opportunity it discusses in depth, is making the UK oilfield services sector a leader in the decommissioning of offshore facilities, positively spinning the expectation the UK will “become the largest decommissioning market globally over the next decade”. Greenfield development is not on the cards, and just two days prior to the paper’s launch Johnson laid out plans to end state export financing for new crude oil developments. Nonetheless, the paper claims to recognise that any North Sea Transition deal will be a ‘quid pro quo’ between industry and Government.

Previous Conservative governments have already cut oil and gas taxes, including effectively eliminating the petroleum revenue tax and slashing the supplementary charge (SR) in 2015 and 2016, but there is little room to go. Cutting the SR would be ineffective at stimulating investment in the current environment. The white paper indicates that only non-fiscal support will be on offer, and that this will only be for those transitioning heavily away from their previous area of business. Whether the Government can extract such a hefty quo for such a potentially meagre quid, remains to be seen, however.

Dollars and sense: stage set for surge of sovereign lawsuits
The difficulty of pursuing foreign governments in domestic courts has long been a major hindrance to developing hard currency capital markets for emerging markets. But the idea of sovereign immunity in such spats has been steadily eroded – while over the last eight years, ever-riskier countries have been able to borrow dollars, euros and pounds out of London and New York. Infamously recalcitrant Argentina even issued a 100-year dollar bond in 2017, only to default again earlier this year. Sovereign credit markets have nonetheless remained frothy, with investors scouring opportunities for any real yield as Western interest rates are expected to remain at or near zero.

Advances in the enforceability of funds owed by uncooperative government creditors are rare, but often quite meaningful. The intervention of the late Judge Thomas Griesa in a group of hedge funds attempts to secure payment from Argentina following a previous dispute kept Buenos Aires frozen out of Western markets for years.

Many bond investors argued that the ruling strengthened emerging country debt markets. However, for non-bond investors, the ability to recover funds from governments when financing agreements go awry is more limited. Such investment disputes are typically heard by arbitration panels rather than by New York State and UK judges, as is the case with most bond spats.

Yet a recent legal settlement involving Guatemala has likely shifted matters slightly in such investors’ favour. On 3 November Guatemala missed a payment on a US$700m bond. Although it transferred funds for the payment to its custodian, Bank of New York Mellon, the bank told bondholders it was barred from making payment due to a restraining notice issued by the New York State Supreme Court. The court issued the order in response to a request from Florida-based firm TECO Energy, which secured a US$35.5 million judgement in its favour from the World Bank’s arbitration institute.

Guatemala protested the court’s order but by 24 November agreed to pay TECO, although it has not exhausted all appeals, even with the spat in its eleventh year. Put simply, Guatemala wished to avoid any blot on its heretofore spotless bond payment record lest it affect its ability to tap capital markets in the future. The process TECO took was rather simple by the standards of sovereign litigation. It secured an order from a D.C. court upholding its arbitral victory, then registering that with New York State Supreme Court, resulting in the restraining notice.

While there are very few countries in default on their foreign bonds at present, Guatemala is one of many countries entangled in lengthy arbitration disputes. We expect the New York State Supreme Court will soon face a barrage of applications for restraining notices from investors hoping to mimic TECO’s success.

Power play: the man reshaping Treasury’s tools
US President-elect Joe Biden’s nomination of Adewale ‘Wally’ Adeyemo as Deputy Treasury Secretary signals the agency’s international role is only likely to grow more activist. Adeyemo has a low public profile, but is a stalwart of the Democratic elite. He most recently served as the first President of the Obama Foundation. Before that as Deputy Chief of Staff to Treasury Secretary, Jack Lew, before concurrently serving as Elizabeth Warren’s Chief of Staff at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and as Deputy National Security Advisor, holding the International Economics Brief. Towards the end of the Obama Administration, he also served as lead negotiator for the Trans-Pacific Partnership and as presidential representative to the G7 and G20.

Adeyemo is tasked with overseeing a review of sanctions policy and will oversee the elements of the US Treasury that relate to its role in international affairs. If confirmed by the Senate, Adeyemo will essentially be the Biden Administration’s point man for ‘geo-economic’ policies, or the use of economic policies to affect geopolitical goals.

Adeyemo’s experience and writings provide an indication of the course he is likely to take. In the negotiations for the TPP, it was Adeyemo who focused on the inclusion of currency manipulation rules, though this was largely abandoned even before US President, Donald Trump withdrew the US from the negotiations. He was a key figure in shaping sanctions both while serving under Lew at the Treasury and in liaising the effort to respond to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2014 in his dealings with the G7 and G20.

Both in and out of the White House, he has also focused on China, and been an advocate of the argument that the biggest threat to Beijing’s rise is its still-maturing financial market. During his 2016 Senate confirmation hearing, he took a relatively soft line on China when asked about his view on the role of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). But the Trump Administration has since thrown up far more barriers to Chinese investment, and it is unlikely the Biden Administration will reverse many of these, if any. Biden’s nominee for US Trade Representative, Katherine Tai, further supports the belief that the Biden Administration will continue to take a hard line on Chinese investment. Adeyemo will ultimately determine how the Treasury supports such policies.

Do not expect any major surprises from Adeyemo’s sanctions review. The new Administration is not going to reverse the Trump Administration’s acceleration of sanctions. It will instead adjust its focus, from unilaterally blacklisting individual firms to working with allies to target China’s relations with the global financial system. Policy will be slow to emerge, and measured, but Adeyemo’s focus will be on limiting China’s ability to become a lynchpin of the global financial system. Given Beijing’s expansive lending abroad in recent years, however, the effort will prove extremely challenging.

Posted in UncategorisedTagged in , , , ,