Category: Politics UK

My most recent Substack is now a little old but as salient as when written. Labour backbenchers were doing their job but have exposed the government’s lack of strategy.

In the 1837 the British government passed the Slavery Compensation Act, whereby slave owners were paid compensation following the emancipation of slaves in the British Empire. Recently I started to think about this given the repeated claims that governments can’t afford to do things: such things as extra defence spending, investing in the green transition, compensating WASPI women, and so on. The slavery compensation was substantial, but government finances weren’t derailed. Surely the question of affordability shouldn’t be reduced to the level of household budgeting? Sometimes it is quite safe for governments to spend freely without raising taxes. I did some gentle internet research. I was a bit shocked.

What shocked me was that nobody seemed very interested in how the British government was able to afford the compensation, or what the economic consequences of the scheme were. Instead they focus on political questions. More recently this has turned on the injustice of slave owners being compensated for an immoral practice, while the slaves received no monetary compensation at all. This, then, inevitably, gets tangled in the question of modern demands for slavery compensation, promoted by Caribbean governments in particular. You would have thought that the economic questions would have interested writers considering these issues, but apparently not.

The amount of compensation was £20 million. That was about 5% of GDP, by modern estimates (such things weren’t measured at the time). It was, apparently 40% of the Treasury budget – an oft-quoted figure though it isn’t explained whether that is the budget before or after the compensation. Overall government receipts at this point were about 10% of GDP. At the time government debt was about 150% of GDP, a legacy of the Napoleonic wars. There was no income tax, with government revenue primarily drawn from excise duties on imports (notably foodstuffs, including, notoriously, imported corn) and alcohol. So this was a substantial sum, paid when government revenues were highly constrained, and debt at very high levels. Much of it was paid through annuities (only finally bought out in 2015). This would have greatly softened the impact on government finances – but for the most part the receivers of compensation sold their annuities for cash, so the impact would have been significant on the economy as a whole. 

What about this impact? I have seen two things mentioned. A television documentary I saw on the topic a while ago suggested that much of the funding was invested in industrial infrastructure, and railways in particular, and so helped promote the industrial transformation of Britain. The Wikipedia article I have linked above suggests that it contributed to a banking crisis – though since the main ones in Britain were in 1825 and 1866, it could not have been all that serious. I have been unable follow the reference to the article that suggested this. 

A general survey of historic government finances by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) fails to mention the episode. Income tax was introduced (or re-introduced, as it had been used in the Napoleonic Wars) in 1841, following the abolition of the Corn Laws, which reduced excise revenues. Government debt steadily fell until it was 40% of GDP at the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. This was primarily due to economic growth – the level of government revenue fell to about 6-7% until the Boer War in 1900, when it returned to 10%. This era saw little inflation – attributed to strict adherence to the Gold Standard.

A further modern article on the topic of how the compensation was afforded suggests that the debt for compensation was paid off by taxes from the freed slaves – with the author getting appropriately worked up about the injustice. It is very hard to see how that could have been the case. This looks like yet another example of economic illiteracy amongst commentators and historians. And that is as far as I was able to get. There seems to be no generally available study of the economic impact of slavery compensation. It appears to have been shrugged off at the time as well as later.

It occurs to me that ignorance about economic history is widespread and almost wilful. An example is the belief that Britain lived off its empire – that the relative wealth of British people was at the expense of poverty in the colonies. Economists that have tried to substantiate this idea have failed. Indeed the loss of Empire in the later 20th Century coincided with a period of significant growth. The economics of slavery is doubtless mired in similar ignorance. In this case though the impact of wealth made in the sugar and cotton trades, dominated by slavery in the West Indies and America, is very visible in such places as Bristol, Glasgow and Liverpool. Still, I doubt that anybody has attempted to construct counterfactuals with the use of free labour or alternative sources of trade. It remains a very influential political narrative – that British economic success was built on the slave trade. This is not wholly implausible (unlike the story of ex-slaves paying off the compensation debt), but surely the picture is far more complex. Germany had no slave trade but built an economy that became just as powerful as Britain’s in the 19th Century.

I was hoping to use the episode as example of how governments can make substantial financial commitments without having to raise taxes. That is hard to pin down as the financial system was very different. The government was able to make the settlement using perpetual debt – which is the easiest form of debt to service, though still requiring interest payments. That would not be done today. On the other hand, since most recipients appear to have sold their bonds, there would have a substantial cash injection into the economy. What was the impact?

The first thing to remember is that money is just a social convention: it’s not for real. It’s a lubricant and not a fuel. Overall what matters is how we use real resources – labour, infrastructure, and so on. Slavery compensation created a financial windfall without directly adding to resources – potentially boosting demand without any corresponding boost to the supply side. In a modern economy that could lead to inflation. In Victorian times it could cause financial dislocation – so linking it to a banking crisis is plausible, even if it is hard to pin down what the crisis actually amounted to. 

If a financial windfall is not spent immediately, however, but simply banked or invested, then the impact on the balance of supply and demand is limited. If this translates into immediate investment spending, however, such as building railway lines, then the same problems may arise – depending on the exact circumstances. It is usually reckoned that a surge in investment spending is easier to accommodate and consumption, however – and it should, after all, lead to an increase in productive capacity. The idea of the windfall helping to propel industrial capacity and growth is therefore quite plausible. If the money is directed abroad, then it won’t impact the domestic economy either. The Wikipedia article suggests that this might have been the case for slavery compensation. But I find myself in a fact-free zone.

What of modern times? Government is much larger, with revenue at about 40% of GDP, and debt smaller, at about 100%. The currency is freely floating, but under domestic control – unlike the days of the Gold Standard. Inflation is a constant threat now in a way that it wasn’t then. There are two particular problems with large government spending commitments. The first is that the impact could be inflationary, if the recipients quickly add to overall economic demand without any corresponding supply boost. The most effective counter to this is to raise taxes to reduce demand by a corresponding amount – or “funding” the spending. But not all taxes are created equal here: capital taxes, or taxes restricted to the very wealthy, affect demand by much less. Alas very few people in the current political debate have grasped this – instead thinking of this as an analogous to household budgeting. A recent example of this debate is the green investment splurge initiated by President Joe Biden’s administration. This is alleged by Republicans to have caused an inflationary surge. And yet the increase in American inflation was hardly different to other countries that were managed much more conservatively.

The second problem with government spending splurges is on the capital markets. The government may need to fund the spending through raising debt. The capacity of the market to do so is limited, though nobody is sure by how much. The government can fund the debt through the creation of money too – but this creates problems of its own (leading straight back to the inflation problem). Also if a country, like Britain, needs to sell the debt to foreign investors there may be constraints. Ultimately the government may have to borrow in foreign currency to bring such investors in – something that adds hugely to the financial risks. Britain has never been forced to do this – but is that because the Treasury is run so conservatively? It was the financial markets that undid Liz Truss in 2023. But Ms Truss was particularly inept – and we should be careful about using this as a general warning about increasing government debt. There are solutions, other than raising taxes on income and consumption – capital taxes can be used to balance the books, or the markets can be convinced that the government will continue to have the capacity to honour the debt. This would be the case if the finance was to be used for capital projects with a good return – including boosting economic growth and tax receipts.

So let’s think about three examples where people are advocating the government boost spending: defence, green investment and the WASPI women. Defence is the most straightforward. Expenditure is likely to be fed back fairly directly into demand, without a corresponding increase in productive capacity. Economic resources are to be repurposed, from things like healthcare and consumption, to armed forces and munitions. This is likely to be inflationary if not supported by tax rises – and these need to be on income tax, national insurance or VAT to work properly. Or else by reducing public spending elsewhere. This is why it is such a political challenge for the current government. I have heard more than one commentator suggest that defence spending can boost growth – but alas that is more economic illiteracy. This is only the case if it is used to soak up spare capacity in the economy (which was the case in the 1930s, for example). This is doubtful now, unless there is a way of bringing back lots of people from sick leave and retirement. It is sometimes said that war spending has boosted the Russian economy – but inflation is growing there, so this growth is illusory. There is a lot of activity but people generally aren’t better off.

The green transition is another matter. Here the funding is being used on capital projects that boost infrastructure. For the most part these projects have clear economic benefits – especially when used to boost solar power, whose economic benefits could be substantial. Carbon capture and storage, used to prolong the use of fossil fuels, is an exception here: this looks like deadweight loss. The Labour Party suggested that it would raise £80 billion a year for a hugely ambitious programme – but then they lost their nerve and scaled back drastically. The number was a bit of a nonsense, admittedly, but the idea that the government could fund substantial green energy projects through borrowing is perfectly plausible. Of course to the extent that energy is a profitable business, a lot of this could be done through the private sector – but a lot of the infrastructure probably is best done through public ownership, and in particular the electricity grid. The government is being too cautious.

How about the WASPI women? This case is closest to slave compensation. The WASPI women were those adversely affected by in an increase on pension age, equalising it with men. They claim that they weren’t informed of the change in time to do anything about it. I haven’t been following the debate in detail, though I am instinctively sceptical of the merits of their case. Still, many politicians, including those leading the current government, have expressed support for compensation in the past. I see that an amount of a bout £60 billion has been suggested – or about 2.5% of GDP. As a one-off cost this does not have the same implications as increasing defence spending, for example. In particular it is unlikely to have a huge immediate effect on demand. A lot of the money will be saved and invested. The people concerned are retired, and doubtless want to improve their lifestyle, but they are also likely to be conservative about it, and save much of it initially. It is unlikely to do much for economic growth, however, though to the extent that the funds are used for investment, there might be some benefit; if people use it to stop working, however, there would be a negative impact. The whole thing is probably much more affordable than it looks – not unlike the slavery compensation.

Alas we will not have a sensible debate on this. Doubtless the government fears that if it gave ground on the WASPI women, it would give a boost to many other aggrieved parties (those in leasehold flats, for example). Still the costs of economic illiteracy are great indeed if governments are needlessly constrained.

Were the neoliberals right after all?

People on the political right are still enjoying themselves now that Donald Trump has assumed the US presidency. Unlike his first term, but much as was forecast, he has established real momentum. He has surprised even me in how he has managed to bend his narrow majorities in the legislature to his will – in contrast to his last presidency. Opponents seem largely stunned into silence. Even The Economist is trying to put a hopeful gloss on things. But it is not enough to predict that this is hubris before a fall: the alternative liberal and left narratives have been shattered. How are they to be replaced?

The Trump euphoria puts me in mind of two episodes, one from the recent past, and one from history. The recent one, which I have already written about, is Boris Johnson’s landslide victory in December 2019. This was accompanied by much hubris, which rapidly unraveled for the same reasons that Mr Trump’s will: impossible promises and valuing loyalty over competence in senior appointments. Such euphoria is common – I can also think of Joe Biden in 2021, Barack Obama in 2009 and Tony Blair in 1997. All led to various levels of disappointment, notwithstanding some genuine achievements. Opposition appeared muted at first on these occasions too. Interestingly, there was no euphoria last year when Labour achieved a landslide victory after 14 years of Conservative-led government in Britain. 

The other episode is much darker because it did not precede a fall: Hitler’s assumption of power in 1933. Hitler’s democratic mandate was a weak one, but he used his access to the levers of power ruthlessly to generate momentum that won over some of the sceptics and many of the undecided. He used this momentum, including the propagation of many fascist narratives, to dismantle the checks and balances of the constitution and secure his power. It took twelve years and the worst war the world has ever seen to dislodge him. There are elements of this in Trump’s accession: he has shown disregard for the constitutional order; he relentlessly promotes false narratives; he commands a party that is intensely loyal to him personally; there is a willingness to threaten violence to get his way. But Mr Trump is no Hitler – he is much more driven by personal narcissism; he is less shaped by a racist narrative (though he’s happy to co-opt many who are racist); he is more influenced by a libertarian narrative, quite unlike the Nazi one; he appears to genuinely dislike war, even as he likes to issue threats, where Hitler saw war as destiny. And he is much older and time-constrained. And the USA in 2025 is not Germany in 1933 – democracy is much more deeply embedded, government is much less centralised, people are much wealthier, and there is no shadow of a major military defeat. But some very bad things could happen. In the end, though, this brand of politics is likely to get weakened and collapse as it will self-evidently be unable to deliver. Hitler had the opportunity of a Keynesian expansion of the economy to transform incomes and jobs; Mr Trump does not.

But such an insight is little help to liberals. Mr Trump’s victory marks a serious defeat. The actual margin may have been small, but he was a manifestly unsuitable candidate, promoting extreme policies. He has a base that accepts pretty much all of what he says – but he also persuaded many millions of less committed people, who saw through his schtick but nevertheless still thought he was a better bet than the liberal alternative. And the momentum following his victory will have only consolidated his support. After his first victory in 2016 there may have been a “Did we really mean to do that?” moment amongst many who voted for him. There will be few doubts this time – indeed people will be anxious to prove to themselves that they made the right choice. The relatively muted liberal (and left) response is warranted. This is a necessary step on the path to renewal. In 2017 there was denial and anger; now we are in negotiation and depression. One of the things that I have learnt since my idealistic 20s is that all lasting change must go through these stages of grief. You must get beyond the anger, but that path leads through depression. You can speed the process up but you can’t avoid it. So depression now is a good sign – it means that people understand how serious the problem is and are a step closer to renewal.

I find myself thinking back to 2017. Then, in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum, Trump’s first victory and the rise of the far-right in many European countries, I pondered how to save liberalism from the rising tide of populism. But the mainstream response was less to reflect on failure, and more on the call to resist. Denial and anger won. Emmanuel Macron won a remarkable victory for liberalism in France; Joe Biden was elected in America on 2020; Boris Johnson’s populist coalition fell apart almost as soon as it had been created. But then Mr Trump came back harder and wiser. Mr Macron came unstuck not despite his attempts to promote serious economic reform, but because of them. Mr Biden’s path of hope and denial was no more successful than Mr Macron’s telling of hard truths. Sir Keir Starmer’s Labour Party may have won in Britain, but he secured only 34% of a relatively low turnout, with the populist Reform UK surging. And now his government finds itself prisoner of its denial of the problems that the country faces.

The problem is that the world has changed. The economy has changed so much that a reordering of government and society is required to meet it. Current ways – with a substantial government payroll and vast social safety net – were based on a growing economy, which allowed an ever increasing tax take, and an ever-increasing workforce as the baby bulge worked through its working years and women were drawn into the workforce. The production side of the economy steadily expanded, allowing the state to expand, and especially to provide services and benefits to older people. But the baby bulge is joining their ranks – they are now living much longer previous generations too. Those older people, either retired or winding down productive work, are delivering a double whammy – exiting the productive, taxable economy, while demanding ever more resources from the state. To sustain this in the traditional way, requires a combination of three things: increased productivity, gains from trade, and immigration. But productivity gains are harder to get, and require unpopular disruption; the opportunities for gains from trade have diminished; and immigration is creating social stresses, especially in housing, where in most countries supply is not keeping pace with demand. The result, right across the developed world, is economic stagnation and widening government deficits. This may not be as unsustainable as many pundits profess, but it can’t go on indefinitely. The capital required to keep things running, from domestic savings or from trade surpluses in the less developed world (notably China) must have limits. 

There are opportunities as well. The two big ones are clean energy – and especially solar power – and information technology (including, but not restricted to, AI). Also the need to reduce over-consumption in developed countries can be linked to a compelling case to protect the environment, especially from climate change. Further developments in life sciences also offer the prospects for improved length and quality of life: not just from more effective treatments and procedures, but also from a better understanding of how to live healthily. 

The right are currently thriving on a diet of denial. They think that good, and improved, standards of living can be sustained without higher taxes, adaptation to clean technologies, or higher levels of immigration. But they have no coherent plan for doing this and are heading for disaster. They are in denial and anger, while liberals are in negotiation and depression. What does renewal look like?

The first thing to say is that the political left has proved an utter failure and is imploding. These have been liberals’ traditional allies – and indeed in America most people make no distinction between liberals and the left. The left has lost its connection with working classes – not keeping pace with how these classes have changed. Instead their base is government workers, and workers in non-governmental organisations which are mainly sustained by governments. They have a huge stake in maintaining the size of government, and giving the government more to do through creating and enforcing rules and regulations. This amounts to managing social problems rather than solving them. This was evident in the left’s shrill opposition to “austerity” in Britain following the great financial crisis of 2007-09, and especially the policies of Conservative-led governments from 2010. This is increasingly unsustainable. Furthermore the left has disappeared into a rabbit hole of identity politics focused on ethnic minorities in particular. They have developed a new language – “cultural appropriation”; “white privilege”; “micro-aggressions”; “critical race theory” – which they seek to impose by regulatory fiat, meaning that majority communities feel they are constantly treading on eggshells, while minorities are encouraged to express offence at a broader and broader range of things. Challenge is suppressed (“cancelled”) rather than taken on. I suppose the hope was that regulations would lead and hearts and minds would follow. But instead they have created stress and people are reeling – including increasing numbers from minority communities. Many are cheering Mr Trump’s roll-back of DEI (Diversity. Equity and Inclusion) initiatives, and not just those on the hard right. It is not that the aims of DEI are wrong, but that they seem more of a job-creation scheme than a solution.

Just how far the left appreciates its failure, and how much they are stuck in denial and anger, I don’t really know. But it is clear that the left is losing political traction everywhere. They may yet be part of a liberal-led political coalition, but they are not enough to defeat the right. Liberals need to distance themselves from the left and attract the centre-right, who will become rapidly disillusioned with the radical-right.

What does that mean? I think it means that liberals need to take a more robust and critical view of government – seeking to make it much more effective and efficient. I am taking care not to say that it should shrink – but it does need to achieve more with the same level of resource, and retreat from areas best left for people to work out for themselves. Fundamentally that means trying to create a better-ordered society with healthier lifestyles – so that fewer public services are needed to fix problems. Funnily enough this is pretty much exactly what the British Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, is saying – though she is much better at diagnosing the problem than offering any coherent solutions. In policy terms I think we can see a number of specifics, thinking especially of the British perspective:

• The drive by the government to improve efficiency by the application of AI is half-right – but it is in danger of being a solution in search of a problem. The objective should be to re-engineer public services holistically – with AI and other technologies enablers. Otherwise we will simply automate bad practice. The key is to break down departmental silos – with solutions based on the needs of people rather than a collection of abstract problems.
• The NHS presents a particular problem. No amount of reengineering is going to allow it to keep pace with increased demand. And trying to solve those problems without addressing social care, as the government seems to be trying to do, is nonsense. Vastly more resources are needed for social care and health services – especially if we are to rely less on cheap labour imported from abroad. This means higher taxes or a much enlarged private sector, or some combination of the two. Funnily enough the last government, between Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak, made an important step in that direction with their hypothecated National Insurance. Reversing this may have been may have been Liz Truss’s most consequential and most destructive achievement. Now mainstream politicians seem unable to face up to the challenge. That has to change.
• Taxes will surely have to rise on exactly the “working people” that the current government is trying to avoid raising taxes on. These taxes are the most economically efficient for a number of reasons. My vision of a smaller state is based largely on reduced demand for its services (except health); but this will take time to achieve and there will be short-term costs. Achieving all the required investment through additional borrowing presents some big risks.
• The current government is right about many of the things it wants to do. Investment must continue in clean energy infrastructure, requiring NIMBYs to be dealt with more robustly. Social housing must be expanded – as lack of availability of housing is behind so many social problems. Deregulation may be helpful but it would be better if this was part of a vision of more effective overall governance than an invitation for lobby groups to peddle their hobby-horses. I am less convinced about expanding air travel, though.
• The UK needs to re-embrace the European Union. This will have to be gradual – focusing on making trade more efficient. For all the Union’s many flaws, economic integration with our closest neighbours is one way to make the economic activity more effective, and we will need all effectiveness we can find.
• Mass immigration, however, for so long the safety valve for the British economy, will need to be brought down. It is creating too many stresses and does not provide a long-term solution. That is the main reason why both taxes will need to rise and public services made more effective and efficient. Politicians should start making that connection with the public. Lower immigration does not come for free.
• The private sector – and capitalism – must be embraced as the most efficient way of reconciling supply and demand. But there must be minimum levels of income so that all have a degree of consumer power. And monopoly capitalism must be closely watched. Some services are genuinely better provided by the state.

It strikes me is how much overlap there is here with old neoliberal ideas, which emphasised smaller government, a less regulated private sector and lower taxes. I don’t think lower taxes can be part of the equation, because of the demographic pressures, especially in a lower-immigration environment. And neoliberals were more relaxed about migration. Neoliberals are an object of loathing by the left – who are inclined to suggest that capitalism has failed, without providing any idea of an effective alternative. This is another reason that liberals need to break free of the left until and unless it goes through its own process of renewal.

And what is the vision? It is of a well-ordered society with low levels of crime, inured into healthy lifestyles and carbon-negative. Nobody should struggle to secure some level of decent housing and other basic needs, provided that they make a positive contribution to society in some way. I don’t think that is impossible, but we have a long way to go. Perhaps above all liberals need to think more about what this vision is and how it might work. Only then will we have a persuasive case to make to people who do not currently think of themselves as liberals – on both right and left.

This post was first published on my Substack account.