Trading With China – As Good As It Seems?

We are constantly being told how important trade with China is and never has this issue more prevalent than this week with the visit of Chinese premier Li Kequiang, but can there really only be an upside to dealing with the world’s second largest economy?

Mr Li came to London with apparently £17 billion in his back pocket in the form of infrastructure deals and other investments in exchange for…we are not sure yet, but visa restrictions are being relaxed to encourage Chinese businessmen.

The way politicians speak you would naturally assume there are only massive plus points for the UK increasing its trading partnerships with China.

In fact UK trade with China has, according to the Chinese ambassador to the UK Liu Xiaoming, increased nearly 14% in the last year, faster than any other EU country.

Yes Mr Farage, that’s right. The UK has increased its trade with China, like that economic powerhouse of Iceland, whilst still part of the EU.

However, it should under no circumstances be assumed this is all good news and in fact closer Sino-UK trading ties should be treated very delicately.

Firstly China is a massive producer, but is not yet a nation of consumers.

Yes, UK companies exported more than £12bn of goods and services in 2013, but the UK imported well over £30bn and this is very dangerous.

With the World Cup currently in progress, Brazil has been a central to the news recently and is a great example of a country which has not benefitted from Chinese imports, despite the country investing in South America.

The Brazilian market has been flooded with cheap Chinese merchandise which has put many domestic producers out of businesses and this is a trend seen in many other countries, not least in America.

In exchange Brazil and many other developing nations in Africa and South America were supposed to benefit both socially and economically from infrastructure deals completed by the Chinese.

However, what ended up happening was a Sinification of public services where the only winners where the Chinese state owned companies who pillaged the land for natural resources in exchange for construction projects carried out by workers from China, not locals.

At a time when America is issuing arrest warrants for Chinese computer hacking of military and commercial computers is this really a nation you want to invite into your country to build a new generation of nuclear power plants and high speed railways?

Human rights also matter…a lot.

Contrary to the opinion of Tory minister Michael Fallon, who said human rights dialogue should not get in the way of trade deals, the way a country treats its people does matter.

How is China able to be competitive on the world stage? Quite simple really. The workers in China are basically treated as slave labour so there are no production costs.

This is how they are able to sell things around the world at knock down prices.

Yes, human rights violations and trade are two separate topics, but there has to be bilateral action to tackle both topics as they are both intrinsically linked.

Until China agrees to play by the same trading rules as everyone else it will always benefit disproportionally more than other countries.

Massive state owned monopolies dominate the industry, there are no health and safety costs, no minimum wage, at best rudimental free markets, pretty much non-existent environmental controls and massive violation of international copyrights.

Pollution levels are appalling and a blatant public health risk and yet there is no effort in China to curb the rapid increase in consumption of carbon based fuels.

Most importantly however, the Chinese currency is still not openly traded.

For years the value of the Yuan, or Renminbi, was pegged to the dollar and it is only in very recent years any effort at all has been made to open up this market.

This makes China unnaturally competitive, especially against the large economies of America and Europe.

The combination of all the aforementioned factors is especially dangerous for the UK and Europe, economies which produce high value products, in particular cars.

China desperately wants to export more vehicles to the US and EU, however Europe is also home to some of the world’s biggest and best car manufacturers.

In the past China has less than subtly ripped off European designs and the cars produced in the country would never pass EU safety standards and crash tests, not to mention they can be produced at remarkably low costs thanks to state funding and what is essentially slave labour.

With many car companies, particularly from Japan, setting up manufacturing bases in the UK and the likes of BMW, Mercedes and Volkswagen, Audi and Ferrari based on the continent it is in our interests to protect the car industry.

While it is undeniably important to increase trade and diplomatic ties with the world’s second largest economy, it is equally important to remember dealing with China has the potential to be a very one sided affair, as many countries in Africa have discovered to their detriment.

First Tremors – How Well Did UKIP Really Do?

Without doubt there has been some kind of political seismic activity. A party with zero MPs, a record of racism accusations and just a single policy winning a national election is undeniably ground-breaking and historic.

Gaining 161 council seats and winning the European Parliament elections outright is nothing to be sniffed at and all three established parties in Westminister will need to urgently address the issues raised by this result.

However, doubts remain about whether or not this was the political earthquake promised by Nigel Farage.

Firstly however, it has to be said the turnout was the thing most would have found disappointing about this election.

Despite all the media attention aimed at the election, thanks largely to UKIP, just 34.19% of people made it to the polls, fewer than in 2009, although only by 0.6%, perhaps proving how little people care about getting out of Europe.

The low turnout is actually an interesting statistic with which to look at UKIPs overall performance.

On polls which only questioned those certain to vote, UKIP was commonly topping the poll on 32-35%, with Labour in second with a vote share in the high 20s.

However, assuming UKIP voters are diehard (and the facts do suggest this) this means the party’s vote share could be as much as 7.5% down on what would have been expected.

In the end UKIPs increase in vote share, of 10.99%, went up only a little more than Labours 9.67%.

You could argue this is down to voter apathy, a disinterest in European elections or disillusionment with politics in general, but it is a key indicator that UKIP did not do as well as maybe they would have hoped, or needed.

With a guaranteed higher turnout for the General Election, it could be argued the many people who would not consider voting UKIP, due to misplaced or accurate views of the party, will play a much larger role which could scupper UKIPs Westminster chances.

It is also worth noting that, despite an undoubtedly good campaign, UKIP only picked up 15.5% of the national vote in council elections, nearly half of its European Election vote share.

Another problem raised is how badly UKIP played in metropolitan areas and in particular London.

Across the country UKIP got 27.5% of the vote, but in London it was just 16.9%, about 40% lower.

UKIPs increase in vote share nationwide falls by a similar amount in the capital to barely over 6%.

While some would claim London is in its own bubble (they might have a point), UKIPs inability to make a breakthrough in the city should certainly be a cause for concern for Nigel Farage et al as it is hard to see them continuing their current momentum without carrying the big metropolitan areas.

There are key differences between the capital and the rest of the country, but as a Londoner myself I am proud my city bucked the nationwide trend.

It is not so much that London is in its own bubble, it is just the cosmopolitan atmosphere means the city is, in terms of social attitudes, ahead of the UK, a fact repeated in all major cities and towns.

Perhaps UKIP spokeswomen Suzanne Evans had a point when she said the party had difficulty appealing to the ‘educated, cultured and young’.

It is also interesting to note UKIP tended to do well in areas with high numbers of white British voters.

In Essex, one of the party’s breakthrough areas, the wards where they did well were made up of 80% from this demographic.

Conversely in London, with a high immigrant population and a place where the supposed effect of the EUs policy in this area should be acute, did not increase UKIPs number of MEPs and saw Labour make some big gains on councils.

Scotland similarly rejected UKIP, who got just 10.4%of the vote, although this was enough to elect UKIPs first European representative north of the boarder, but was a major drop on its overall vote haul.

This could be attributed to an independent Scotland’s desire to join the EU, but the lowlands and cities have seen a booming immigrant population and should perhaps be very representative of UKIPs vision of the EU at work.

Another problem facing UKIP is only just over half of those who voted for them in May 2014 will currently do the same in May 2015, with the majority heading back to the Conservatives, but seeing Labour and the Lib Dems regaining a much higher percentage of their deserters.

At a nationwide level it is pretty clear (and hardly surprising) they hurt the Tories more than the other parties.

UKIPs problem here is expanding their policy base.

It is easy for them to be different on Europe, but they will find it harder to differentiate themselves on taxation, health, education and all the other important national issues, particularly from the Conservatives.

Any talk of privatisation of the health service or flat rate taxation will lose them most of its Labour and Lib Dem defectors, while its Conservative supporters would have to vote blue to get the EU referendum, which UKIP certainly cannot offer.

You can also guarantee the other parties will be adjusting their ground game to combat this new threat and this tactic will certainly include exposing low attendance and dubious voting records of UKIP MEPs.

Sustained UKIP momentum is also required on a local level, with it taking many elections to take control of councils and this year’s good result plausibly based on it coinciding with the European Elections.

The fact is we will get a better understanding of UKIPs long terms success in just over a week’s time with the Newark by-election.

Given how this election came about and UKIPs surge they would expect to do well, although winning might be beyond their grip.

However, if they do not win they need a strong showing or a big surge in its vote share to prove they are now not just a European party, but a national one as well.

It will be fascinating to see the first polls come out.

European Elections – UKIP and All That Jazz

On Thursday people will head to the polls for what is being described as the most important European Elections in decades and the increased focus has generated a greater level of debate on what is an important topic for the UK.

Never in my lifetime has there been so much media coverage in the run-up to a European election and this rise can largely be put down to one man, Nigel Farage.

In fact, this blog is going to do something unexpected and praise UKIP (don’t worry we will revert to type shortly).

Regardless of your views of him, Mr Farage and UKIP have been instrumental in bringing the European question out of the third tier and put it front and centre and, while many might argue this is a problem in itself given the other issues we face today, it is an important question.

Democracy is all about engagement and when people do not turn up to vote, as they have historically not for the Euros, this can lead to a serious question of under-representation, where a candidate no longer has to appeal to a wide range of constituents.

Hopefully, the increased interest will lead to a greater turn-out of voters and drive the EU in the direction the majority of people want it to go.

Without a doubt, increased media coverage of these elections has been good for the UK, the EU and the potential future relationship of the two.

However, while the debate is a vital part of democracy, it is hard to escape the fact UKIP are increasing the level of debate and harming the process simultaneously.

The problem is, and here is where this blog reverts to type, UKIPs arguments are not based on facts, but on perception and are not focused on the real problems but are about singling out a scapegoat.

Immigration is a classic case in point and is the central theme of the purples campaign.

The average UKIP voter believes the foreign born population of this country to be about 38% of the total, while in fact it is just 13%, meaning the average UKIP voter is overstating the problem by nearly 200%.

UKIP claim the EU costs us £50 million a day, but conveniently chooses to ignore the rebate and the economic benefits from our membership.

The very notion of benefit fraud and health tourism has been proven to be so ridiculous even Mr Farage does not mention it any more.

A UKIP poster personified “EU policy at work” as an unemployed construction worker, when the Federation of Master Builders claims 25% of building firms are struggling to recruit enough.

Supposedly immigrants are causing wages to go down, but there is at best only circumstantial evidence to support this and lower wages in some industries are an inescapable part of being part of a free market, the same free market UKIP claims to support.

Another election poster claims 75% of our laws come from the EU, but UKIP have offered no evidence to support this, while the House of Commons Library, an independent organisation, calculated it would be hard to go over 50%.

All these unsubstantiated claims come on top of the fact Mr Farage has been an MEP for 15 years (he took his seat the same year I sat my GCSEs) and has done nothing to combat these issues and in fact has done very little of anything in the European Parliament except clocking up one of the worst attendance records in the chamber.

UKIP also claim our tax money is funding the celebrity lifestyle of bureaucrats, which is rank hypocrisy from a party who enthusiastically claim salary and expenses while not turning up to do the job we elected them to do.

Unfortunately this shines through in their voting record where they oppose, or more commonly abstain, on votes which could make people’s lives better and improve the EU as an institution.

This includes not turning up for a vote on abolishing mobile phone roaming charges, which would have been of huge benefit to the public and businesses of Great Britain, and this is just one of hundreds of examples where UKIP MEPs are elected to Brussels and do not represent you.

If there is a democratic deficit in the European Parliament it is not the fault of the EU, it is the fault of those MEPs who choose to take our money and ignore the benefits of legislation purely out of distain for an organisation they have no interest in reforming.

The most frustrating problem is UKIP have still not offered any kind of vision for what the UK is like if it does leave the EU, which for a party so hell-bent on leaving is at best strange and at worst is negligent.

This problem is best summed up by current polling, where, despite UKIPs surge, 54% of people want to stay in the EU.

What will the UKs status be outside the EU, how long will it take to renegotiate trade deals, will our focus be on Europe or emerging markets, how will we decide what immigrants we need, how many jobs will be lost in the short term, what will happen to foreign investment, what EU laws would the UK still have to follow and many other questions have not been answered.

This policy-gap is a continual problem with UKIP. Mr Farage has admitted the only policy ahead of these elections is leaving the EU. Seriously, how can you cast a vote for a party with just one policy and offering no insight on health, infrastructure, education or any other issue?

All of these questions arise even before you get to UKIPs and its questionable stance on worker’s rights, women’s rights and gay rights, its anti-environment standpoint and the despicable views and behaviour of some of its senior members.

No sensible person thinks the EU is functioning perfectly and this blog has said so in the past.

However getting the things we need, greater accountability, more transparency, closer trading rather than political ties and many other issues, are only hindered by voting UKIP and can only be achieved by electing those who want to make things better, not just line their own bed and point fingers.

The economic and social benefits we get from Europe are undeniable and the dues the UK gives to the EU are negligible compared to the financial benefits we get out, however, the debate is needed so we the voters can make sensible decisions based on facts, not assumptions.

Personally, UKIP does not represent a Britain I recognise or a future Britain I want to be a part of, but if you truly believe in what they say by all means cast your vote for them, but ask yourself do you want to elect someone who will represent you and your concerns and will work to make things better, or an anti-EU party whose MEPs cannot even be bothered to raise their hands.

So yes, while UKIP should be thanked for opening up the debate, the criticism aimed at them is more than valid, because the debate should be about the facts, not assumptions, and should deal with the real questions and issues surrounding the EU, not just scaremongering about Romanians moving in next door.

In, Out, In, Out - The European Question

The European Union is one of the most divisive arguments in British politics and has once again been pushed front and centre by the televised debates between Liberal Democrat leader and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg and UKIP frontman Nigel Farage.

According to the subsequent YouGov polls Farage emerged the clear winner of the first debate, where facts took second place to grandstanding and rhetoric.

This blog is, as anyone who has read it will know, unashamedly pro-European, but this is not to say it stands by how the EU currently operates. In fact reform of the EU is desperately required, but this should be done with the UK at the top-table, not as an outsider.

The main focus of these reforms should be to return the EU to something closer to its original conception as a trading block. Unfortunately, the EU itself has become far to political and the fears of Eurosceptic’s about powers being delegated away from the country’s parliament do certainly have some validity.

Currently, we can only assume David Cameron holds a similar view-point, with the Prime Minister determined to renegotiate certain treaty aspects with the EU before holding a referendum in 2017, if he is re-elected, but the public still have no idea about what powers will be put on the table.

While certainly not directly opposed to a referendum in 2017, after all it has been many decades since the voting public were given a say on this issue, the main problem is the confusion and doubt this has the potential to cause, not to mention the issues arising if the UK votes to leave.

The pro-European argument centres on one of the big issues of the day, the economy and jobs, and this remains the key reason for wanting to remain as a central member of the club.

While the 3 million job losses figure used by Nick Clegg is certainly questionable, a recent report by the Centre for Economic and Business Research (CEBR) suggests 4.2 million jobs are currently supported by the UK exporting to the EU.

The CEBR does not go as far as to claim 4.2 million jobs will be lost if the UK leaves, but it is hard to imagine a situation where a UK exit does not cost jobs.

A good example of this is the head of Nissan, who said the Japanese car giant would have to seriously consider relocating its manufacturing base to continental Europe if the UK were to leave.

It would be easy to claim this is just big business towing the line, but why would Nissan choose to stay in the event of a UK exit?

The population of Europe is around 485 million people, with the UK accounting for about 70 million of that total, meaning there is many times the number of consumers on the mainland than there are in Britain.

With this in mind, and taking into account the confusion a referendum would bring, Nissan and any other company associated with the import export market would, at the very least, need to plan for a move to the continent.

Some would choose to leave, others might risk staying to see what deal a UK government independent of the EU could achieve on trade, but either way jobs would be put at risk.

Then take into account how long it would realistically take the UK to negotiate trade deals, not just with the EU, but India, China, USA, Russia, Brazil and the dozens of other major trading nations worldwide.

Trade deals, however, would prove problematic as again we have to accept we have a small percentage of the EUs overall consumers, so countries know they will get a better deal from talks with the EU than an independent UK.

If a UK exit resulted in Germany and France similarly ditching the experiment then fine, but this is an unlikely scenario.

Even if the UK could get a good trade deals, something which is certainly not guaranteed, it could take years, if not decades to iron out all the details, leaving the UK with a government unable to do anything of purpose during the interim period.

Yes, the UK might eventually reclaim some of the jobs lost due to the exit, but there is no guarantee they would come back or how long it might take, leading to the nightmare scenario of large scale unemployment and negligible growth for the foreseeable future.

This scenario does not just account for car manufacturers or import/ export based companies.

The UKs financial sector contributes billions to the exchequer in corporation and income tax, not to mention making the UK an obvious centre for international businesses looking to trade with Europe.

If a referendum is called there would be untold fluctuations in the stock and currency markets as brokers try to second guess what the outcome will be, not to mention the fact many of the financial institutions would similarly be forced to consider moving to Germany.

This is not scare-mongering, this is the reality of the UK contemplating leaving the EU.

This country has already seen how disruptive major referendums can be, with the Scottish independence vote causing problems despite the fact it is unlikely Scotland will vote to leave the UK.

However, it would be naive to think the out campaign did not have some validity, in fact even some of the most disliked groups, such as the English Defence League, have at the centre of their argument a sensible point.

Yes, unlimited mass immigration is a problem, but the facts simply do not back up the case.

Farage claimed during the debate that the entire population of Europe has the right to come to Britain and while he is technically right this totally misses the point.

Why would the entire population of Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal and every other EU country suddenly move to the UK? This would be so economically counter-productive that the idea is almost laughable.

Similarly there is no evidence for benefit tourism, in fact immigrants put in far more to the government coffers than they take out and in fact contribute a higher percentage than British people.

There are of course some problems, such as the undercutting of wage, cash in hand work, non-payment of taxes, overcrowding in rental properties and bed-sharing.

However, the best way to deal with these things is to attack the cause of the problem, not by demonising immigrants, as this benefits everyone in the UK.

It is wrong companies can get away with paying immigrants below the minimum wage and undercut UK workers, but this should be dealt with by dealing with the companies paying low salaries, not by restricting immigration.

Similarly the non-payment of tax, or cash work is also the fault of the businesses operating in this way, not the people who take the work.

UKIP recently floated a policy which said immigrants should be forced to pay into the tax system before being allowed into the country as to many were taking cash-in-hand work.

On the face of it this seems quite logical if you are worried about tax evasion, but the problem here is if a company is unscrupulous enough to pay immigrant workers in this way why would they not similarly pay British workers in cash?

What the companies in these situations are doing is wrong both legally and ethically, so the clampdown should be on these businesses not on the immigrants.

The same goes for overcrowding in rented properties.

Obviously the fact immigrants are willing and able to cram themselves into properties and bed-share is not the fault of the people living in the properties, but the landlords who are renting them.

Landlords simply take advantage of the situation. Rent is taken in cash and not declared to the Inland Revenue and the property is not maintained because the owner does not need to meet the more exacting standards or UK born renters.

For years those living in the rental market, including UK citizens, have complained about the way private landlords behave, but these complaints have been dismissed as undue interference in a private market.

What this comes down to is the negative impact we associate with an immigrant population are not actually the fault of the immigrant population, but caused by those who employ and house them.

Yes, we need immigrants to contribute to society, to pay for the NHS, schools and other public services, but it is the way they are treated by employers and landlords which result in the negative impact we associate with an immigrant population.

If all companies paid the minimum wage and all landlords abided by basic housing standards, there would not be the pressure on low wages so often seen as a by-product of a cheap labour influx.

In fact, economists of all political leanings agree a level of immigration is not only beneficial, but essential for growth and a key indicator of a growing economy.

One of the greatest pressures currently facing the UK is not jobs or public service provision, but an aging population.

The immigrants coming to this country are young people, exactly the generation we need to encourage to prop-up the social costs of helping our older generations enjoy their retirement.

Conveniently, this does bring us onto the overcrowding issue, the argument about Britain being basically full and not able to accept any more people.

While this, like so many of the other arguments, is valid, it again misses the point.

For starters, the fact the UKs indigenous population is aging means there is a massive short-fall of younger people, a place now being taken by migrants and those who come over here, work hard and pay taxes should be welcomed with open arms.

Secondly, there has been massive under-building in this country for decades in terms of schools, hospitals and housing and if it takes an influx of Eastern Europeans for the government and developers to notice this then so be it.

Lastly, all available data, and remember The UK has a long history of immigrant populations, suggests the levels naturally even out.

In recent years, for example, it has been shown Polish people tend not to settle in the UK for the long-term, but contribute to the UKs economy before returning to their homeland to help improve the prospects of poorer European countries, particularly if their country of origins economy starts to pick up.

This trend is well established, having been seen already from immigrants coming from commonwealth countries and parts of the British Empire.

On a related point, we often forget the EU open boarder rules work both ways, allowing UK residents to easily move from their home to work and set-up businesses all across Europe, benefiting the people of the continent as a whole.

In fact the number of UK residents currently living abroad is similar to the number of Eastern European migrants currently estimated to be in the UK.

The one thing I personally found striking about the EU debate last week was how Farage has no answers on the big questions.

Yes, he has a position on the key issues such as immigration and EU membership costs, but he is unable to provide any answers on the big-issues and it is probably best to not even mention his Putin-supporting foreign policy.

As a leader of a less-significant national party it is hard to blame him for this, but in the European elections he is the leader of a front-runner and should be able to provide more details on how a UK exit would affect employment rates, the import/ export market, UK-based financial institutions and how long it would take the UK to renegotiate trade deals.

For better or worse the UK is in the EU and even contemplating an exit has the potential to bring chaos and uncertainty to what is still a very fragile recovery and jobs market.

Yes, there is too much bureaucracy and waste in the EU and the UK does not always get the best out of trade deals, but this is best solved by ensuring the UK is a significant member of the club, a proud voice standing up for what the UK and Europe needs, not an isolationist nation.

The best way to achieve this is by electing MEPs who care about this country’s position in Europe, not Eurosceptic’s whose main goal is to make themselves unemployed.

Predictions and Premonitions – Looking Forward to 2014

As 2013 [literally] blows into 2014 many choose to look back over the last 12 months, there has even been a program dedicated to reviewing the years weather, an exercise almost as pointless as telling us what the weather was like earlier in the day.

However, here at The Inquisitive Panda we like to look forward, so instead have decided to give you five things to look out for in the next 12 months.

Energy

The last few months of 2013 has been dominated by a variety of energy related topics, from price rises to Labour’s price freeze promise, and this will continue well into the New Year with many issues continuing to dominate the landscape, both socially and politically.

The cost of living will almost certainly remain a centre of contention between the coalition and the opposition, regardless of how well the official GDP, employment and inflation figures suggest, mainly because Ed Miliband knows keeping this issue front and centre is vital to his potential success in the next general election.

Regulation will also be a battleground with a new chief executive, Dermot Nolan, taking over at Ofgem. 

Between the incessant hatred of the consumer towards the energy companies, fuel poverty and the potential power shortage he certainly has his work cut-out and will undoubtedly never be far from the headlines.

Energy generation is set to be a major issue in 2014, particularly when it comes to fracking. There have been several high-profile disputes and protests over this controversial energy source this year, including one involving the arrest of Green Party MP Caroline Lucas.

While there are certainly some significant benefits to fracking, there remain some serious problems, several of which relate to the industry regulator. If fracking really is to become a major energy source in the UK 2014 might have to be the year it starts to take off.

Bulgaria and Romania

With the immigration restrictions being lifted on 1 January, those leaving two of the EUs newest member states looking for work in the UK were never going to be far from the news. In fact both the Eurosceptic and Europhile elements in British politics have both been keen to keep the issue newsworthy, albeit in different ways, to further their own cause.

Yet, unlike other years when the immigration issue would rumble along as it usually does, with no tangible effect, the EU elections will ensure it remains a key issue in the run-up to polling-day in May.

The European elections also offer the opportunity to mention what could be a key political story this year, the rise of UKIP. Despite serious gains over the last 12 months, Nigel Farages party continues to be seen by most as a protest vote, with no real influence, an image not helped by Godfrey Bloom’s repeated blunders during 2013.

However, with the EU soap-box available for the first few months of the year, UKIP, and most importantly Mr Farage, have the opportunity to vault the main political parties and gain support in local elections, potentially making them a serious force in 2015, a party who could actually gain seats, rather than one simply there to harm to Conservative’s share of the vote.

There is one other issue likely to come out of the EU elections, and that is the debate over voter turnout. European parliament elections have traditionally never seen high numbers at polling stations and, regardless of them being arranged for the same day as local government elections, it is unlikely they will be any better this year.

Manufacturing, Retail and Exports

As 2013 progressed the economic news started to improve, although the UK, the Eurozone and America are far from in good health. As much as the economic revival is expected to continue, there are three statistics which will continue to have increased significance in 2014.

Industrial output, how much the UK is producing, retail sales, how much is being spent on the high street, and export figures, how much is being sent overseas, are the most important of these, for very different, but equally important reasons.

Both manufacturing and retail statistics have been volatile and need to stabilise and grow over the next 12 months. Improving industrial output proves companies are confident enough in the business conditions, while increasing retails sales would demonstrate the welcome return of consumer confidence.

From a political, rather than economic perspective, export figures will also be worth watching as if these start to increase then the Conservatives central policy, of exporting further afield than just the EU, will demonstrate the growing influence of UK plc across the world.

Syria

Rarely out of the newspapers this year, Syria is likely to remain high on the news agenda, for several reasons.

First is the decommissioning of chemical weapons under the Russian led deal put together earlier in the year. If this goes to plan then the west will be able to claim some kind of progress, if there are hold-ups or if something else should go wrong then the whole debate about military intervention will raise its head again.

The level of human suffering, as terrible as it is, will be counted in far more than dead and displaced as the refugee crisis forces the bordering countries to actively take sides in a highly charged conflict which shows little chance of abating.

The influence of Syria’s Arab neighbours cannot be underestimated in terms of the global war on Islamic extremism, with Iraq, Lebanon and Turkey, all with their own sectarian problems, being inadvertently caught up the war’s aftermath, not to mention Iran, Israel, Palestine, Hezbollah, Hamas and almost countless more interested parties.

In terms of the war on terror, Africa is likely to become the main focus for Islamic extremism in the next year, with the continued rise of Al Shabab and violence in South Sudan and the Central African Republic.

2015

Let’s face facts, the big story of 2014 will be what will happen in 2015 and from the UKs perspective the big story this year will be the political positioning ahead of the following years general election, but this will take very different paths.

David Cameron and the Conservative party will try, in all likelihood unsuccessfully, to have a quiet year and rely on improving economic figures to boost their polls, while Ed Miliband and Labour need to make some noise and, more importantly, headway on important issues.

Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats are unlikely to have a successful year. While in government is difficult for them to effectively oppose spending cuts and will then face an uphill battle trying to persuade anyone to vote for them come May 2015. It will certainly be interesting to see what, if anything the Deputy Prime Minister does to improve his chances over the next year.

Most important on the political spectrum this year will be Nigel Farage and UKIP who, following the EU elections, will look to position themselves as effective alternatives to both Labour and Conservatives at the general election. However, the question remains as to whether or not the party can come up with more than one electable member in a national election.

What Didn’t Make the Cut and Why

Scottish Independence referendum: Many might be surprised this has not made the cut in a 2014 preview, but there is one good reason for this, we already know what the result will be. It would take a monumental swing to the pro-independence movement for the result to change so we are not even going to bother thinking about it.

World Cup: Face it, England will be lucky if they reach the quarter finals, and if they do they will lose on penalties.

America: Joy of joys, Presidential Primaries will start in early 2016. After the display both parties have put up in 2013, it will be nothing but painful to see what second-rate carpetbaggers toss their hats into the ring to replace President Obama.