Category: Politics UK

Reflections on general political developments and ideas in the UK

Dominic Raab and Diane Abbott shine light into some dark spaces

Politicians have to navigate two worlds: that of politically correct official policy and the respectable disagreements with it, and the world of their committed supporters where more extreme views are common currency. This happens in all parties. Liberal politicians have to restrain and suppress views on such topics as Brexit and immigration, for example. This does not stop politically incorrect views being widely disseminated in mainstream media, of course, but politicians must be very wary of publicly supporting any such views. Two episodes which broke over the weekend illustrate this.

The first was that of Dominic Raab, who resigned as deputy prime minister and Justice Secretary, after a report into accusations of inappropriate behaviour – bullying – in the management of civil servants, which upheld some of them. Mr Raab came out swinging: he suggested that the threshold set for bullying was set too low, and would make the task of ministers implementing their promises to electors impossible. He also suggested that some civil servants were undermining the government because they disagreed with its policies. These complaints were taken up by parts of the press, notably The Telegraph. It was soon being suggested that the complaints were orchestrated in order to remove a politically contentious but hard-working minister – and that others would receive the same treatment.

The prime minister has remained silent on the issue; opposition parties have piled in to condemn Mr Raab, with the Liberal Democrats even suggesting that he resign as an MP. On the face of it, Mr Raab’s arguments are hard to sustain. Most of the specific complaints made by civil servants (six out of eight) were not upheld – but there were two examples that the report’s author, employment lawyer Adam Tolley, viewed as too extreme. It would be easier to accept Mr Raab’s assertion if all the complaints had been upheld. The bar Mr Raab seems to want is high indeed – physical intimidation. Others point out that Mr Raab’s record of achievement in office is weak, compared to others with similar politics. I have spent many years in a professional management environment and have no sympathy with what Mr Raab is suggesting. There are good and bad ways of getting the people you work with to do what you want; Mr Raab clearly opted for the bad far too often. I am pretty obsessive about fonts and formatting (apparently one of the issues that Mr Raab complained about) – but as a manager I just had to let go, as the topic didn’t matter all that much in the end.

Still, Mr Raab is getting a sympathetic hearing in many places, and not just The Telegraph. But this is not politically mainstream. One survey suggests that most people claim to have experienced bullying by their superiors at work. I have worried that bullying behaviour by managers is so commonly portrayed in television and film dramas that people think it is how management is done – but this is doubtless trumped by direct personal experience, where people meet good management technique as well as bad. The FT’s Stephen Bush suggests that political careers tend not to provide such exposure to good management practice, though, and perhaps that is why politicians so often fall into Mr Raab’s trap. It is easier to see how the idea of the civil service undermining government policy has currency, though. The idea of a civil service “blob” is popular amongst conservatives; doubtless socialists who have made it as far as government office feel similarly. Passive-aggressive behaviours are common in all organisations, though, and the more radical your ideas are, the more of it you will get – as I know full well from direct experience. It is something competent managers develop techniques to manage, and less competent ones get paranoid about. But such conspiracy theories are the currency of activists and not the political mainstream.

Diane Abbott’s case is perhaps a bit more interesting. Ms Abbott is a long-standing Labour MP, elected in 1987, as the first black woman elected to parliament. While she can be a bit eccentric, she is clearly an intelligent person, and one who has suffered mountains of misogynistic and racial abuse. Her problems arose from a letter to The Observer newspaper, in response to this article by Tomiwa Owolade. It is worth getting the context of this episode right. Mr Owolade led off with this anecdote:

I was a sixth-form student and talking to a girl who told me with utter confidence that “white people can’t be victims of racism”. Racism is about power and privilege. White people have power and privilege. Black people and Asians don’t. This means that only the latter group can be victims of racism; racism is the exercise of power and privilege against people of colour.

Tomiwa Owolade, The Observer 15 April 2023

He describes how at first he accepted this point of view, but that he came to reject it: life is much more complicated than that (‘not black and white” as the title to the article has it). In evidence he discussed a recent survey of people’s experiences of racist abuse. This found that both Jews and Irish Travellers, people often defined by black people as “white”, were more likely to experience such abuse than black or Asian people. The survey even found that white Irish people suffered more racial abuse than black Africans or Asians. He also pondered the fact that in the survey most black and Asian people did not claim to have experienced racial abuse at all. Of course a survey such as this is not conclusive evidence by itself, and actual experience of abuse is only one explanation of the way people answer such questions: but it is clear that Jewish people, and especially Irish Travellers, experience a lot of abuse.

This was, apparently, too much for Ms Abbott, who clearly agreed with the girl in Mr Owolade’s anecdote, and defines Jews, Travellers and Irish as white. She has since withdrawn the letter (and apologised for its content which she described as an early draft sent by accident), and I haven’t found a version of the full text to link to. These are the sentences that have been most widely quoted:

It is true that many types of white people with points of difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice. But they are not all their lives subject to racism. In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus. In apartheid South Africa, these groups were allowed to vote. And at the height of slavery, there were no white-seeming people manacled on the slave ships.

I hope I don’t need to point out that highly selective nature of Ms Abbott’s historical examples (Jews and Gypsies sent to death camps in Europe; British ruling classes shrugging off mass starvation during the Irish famine, and so on): her words clearly reflect common talking points amongst certain groups of political activists – and I do understand why black people in particular are reluctant to accept terms of reference set by a white-dominated establishment. But in the wider political context such ideas are incendiary – and much more politically incorrect that Mr Raab’s views on what constitutes bullying. The Labour Party is just emerging from a very damaging row about antisemitism – which the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn was accused of not doing enough to combat. Mr Corbyn’s line was different to this one though – he suggested that antisemitism was just another form of racism, and didn’t merit special treatment. But Ms Abbott’s letter suggests that antisemitism is on a par with prejudice against redheads. She was immediately suspended pending investigation. It is hard to understand how such an experienced politician allowed such a letter to go out under their name – and very hard to see how she can come back from it.

Alas a sensible debate on racism and antisemitism is impossible to have in the current political climate. Pretty much any view is going to create offence somewhere – and spark accusations of some form of racism or denial. Nuance is crushed as every scrap of evidence is mobilised to support one or other fixed view. It is clearly is a complicated issue, but no respectable politician can afford to challenge the conventional wisdom. I rarely discuss it on my blog, since the risk of my remarks being misinterpreted and misused is so high.

Still some writers, such as Mr Owolade (who writes for the New Statesman) do try to explore the nuance. Perhaps one day we can move on. At least with workplace bullying and the role of the civil service we can have a bit more of an open debate.

Only higher taxes can save the NHS. That will require serious political reform

Dr Chris Morris on the picket line. Picture: BMA

For once it is not the usual journalistic hyperbole to suggest that Britain’s National Health Service is failing. Waiting lists mount as the service is racked by strikes. With little sign of an end to these severe workforce issues, it is hard to see how the service is going to recover from the stresses placed on it by the covid pandemic. Indeed, things just seem to be getting worse. But Britain’s politicians are not being honest with the public about what is required to bring the service back to an even keel.

Just how bad are things? Workers and their union representatives have an interest in painting a bleak picture to support their pay claims; journalists suffer their normal bias towards the sensational and the bad; so it is hard to get a clear objective picture. Parts of the service appear to be operating reasonably well. Recently my household, in East Sussex, has had cause to use local primary care services, and cancer treatment. Neither service has been up to where we wanted it to be: it very hard to get a face-to-face appointment with a general practitioner, and the 8am scramble to get an appointment of any sort is both farcical and painful; there are delays of weeks in the cancer service. But neither service has fallen below the acceptable – and when you get the it, the service is excellent. We are not signing up for private services yet – though we have done this for dentistry and optometry. But there are places – such as apparently to the east in Kent – where things are more desperate. Reported waiting times for ambulances and at Accident & Emergency in hospitals are starting to alarm. The unions paint a picture of a workforce crisis – with high vacancy rates, and staff leaving the service either through burnout, or to better opportunities outside the NHS, including in Australia. Statistics back these claims up, and nobody is seriously challenging this narrative, not even the government. For that reason I largely accept it – though I suspect that in some parts the country NHS staff may be paid generously by local standards – though this is unlikely to apply to doctors, who are much more mobile.

It is the strikes that are the greatest cause for concern. High inflation comes on top of many years in which real levels of pay have been squeezed. Nurses, ambulance operatives and other more junior staff may be arm-wrestled into accepting pay that does not meet their longer term concerns. But the doctors are only getting started in their campaign, and are taking a very aggressive line indeed. There are no settlement talks. Throughout these disputes both sides seem to be talking at cross-purposes. The unions are trying to address a workforce crisis that has been building up over years; the government talks about a year of temporary hardship in order to combat inflation and meet government financial targets. This mismatch goes to the heart of the issue.

The main problem is that the NHS has an effective monopoly on employment for the key medical skills – what economists call a monopsony. This allows them to frequently get away with paying below what should be a market rate for the job. The Treasury ruthlessly exploits this market power in its annual attempt to make its budgeting work. Longer term issues are always tomorrow’s problem. The NHS as an institution is very popular with trade unions, but the dirty secret is that a privatised system would almost certainly pay its workers more, at least in most parts of the country. The government suggests that higher rates of pay can be contemplated if workers become more efficient. It’s generally not hard to find inefficiencies – but much harder to address them in such a complex environment, There is no evidence that I am aware of to suggest that the NHS is inefficient by international standards – the opposite in fact, although greater “efficiency” may be a function of low pay. Besides, efficiency gains are overwhelmed by rising demand and medical inflation. Meanwhile high staff turnover only makes the financial squeeze tighter.

But what about affordability? Here again it is very easy to get caught in a cross-purposes argument. The NHS budget is a major headache for the government, as it is almost entirely funded from taxation. But health care is a major priority for people, and given the ability to choose, people would spend a lot of money on it. More money, almost certainly that the country now pays for its health services. And since it does not require much in the way of imports, there is no good reason that the country can’t spend a lot more on the NHS, and less on nonsense and luxuries. That doesn’t help the government, as its budget does not cover nonsenses and luxuries, which are for private choice. It can only square the circle by raising taxes. To spend more without raising taxes would be inflationary, the last thing the economy needs right now. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, is quite right about that, though he somehow fails to explain that it wouldn’t be inflationary if he raised taxes.

What is needed is a long-term workforce strategy for the NHS, covering both pay and recruitment, showing how the country intends to sustain the workforce required. I have heard that the government is working on such a strategy, but somehow it keeps being delayed. That would not be surprising, as surely there is hole in the heart of it. The government is adamant that it wants to cut rather than raise taxes. Labour is no better. It is terrified of being painted as the party of high taxes, especially as inflation has put many people under financial pressure. It comes up with a few tax-raising gimmicks (taxing non-domiciled residents more; taxing private schools; and so on). These aren’t enough to do the necessary heavy-lifting. Besides, in order for extra spending on staff not to be inflationary it is necessary for any tax rises to reduce consumption. The sorts of tax gimmick Labour are proposing are more likely to affect the savings rates of the wealthy, and not have much impact on domestic consumption; it would help public debt, which is just a statistic, but do little for inflation. Other opposition parties (the Lib Dems, the Greens, the SNP, etc.) are no more convincing.

What happens if the NHS is not given more funding? People will spend more on private health care. This would create a doom loop, as the private sector competes with the NHS for staff, making its workforce problems and waiting lists worse. This is what has happened to dentistry. And a growing a private sector creates a whole variety of inequities and inefficiencies, with the system as it now is.

There are perhaps three ways that the circle might be squared, and the pressure on taxes reduced: economic growth, reducing demand, and private/public integration. Economic growth is, of course, every politician’s favourite answer. Readers of this blog will know that I am growth sceptic – the demographics and deeper economic dynamics are against it. Still, Britain has some particular issues that might allow the country to be more economically efficient: more affordable housing; trade integration with the European Union; looser immigration rules. For various reasons these are all politically unacceptable. Liz Truss has shown how politically unpopular a growth agenda can be – though her biggest ideas about achieving this (tax cuts, for example) were laughable. Meanwhile deteriorating health is acting as a brake on growth – though it is hard to tell how much the NHS workforce problems are part of this.

Could we reduce stress on the NHS by moving to healthier lifestyles? Reducing consumption of processed foods; healthier relationships with drugs and alcohol; better approaches to mental health? Good luck with that.

My third suggestion is more integration between the NHS and private care. That would mean things like hospitals accepting “co-payments” – supplementary payments for higher standards of care or non-essential treatments. But that would undermine the egalitarian ethos of the NHS, which is again considered politically toxic.

So every way of tackling the NHS crisis hits a political roadblock. It is at this point that I could suggest that this is not the fault of our politicians, but the public itself. It refuses to confront the tough choices required. But that isn’t fair on the public. Many suspect that tax rises are on the way – and there is widespread sympathy for NHS staff. But our political system forces politicians to concentrate on narrow groups of marginal voters, who dictate the political weather. All parties have concluded from this that it is suicidal to have an honest debate on tax and the NHS. No party can, say, try to make a case for higher taxes, which convinces, say, 25% of the electorate to create a substantial block in parliament, which would in turn force other parties to deal with it to form a government.

Instead our politicians throw insults at each other in the hope of influencing a minority of voters in a minority of parliamentary seats. And there is no momentum for serious reform.

The moral high ground is not good politics

An earlier example of low political advertising from the 2016 referendum campaign (c) Vote Leave

Labour’s national campaign HQ must be beside themselves with glee. They put out an online advert claiming that the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, wants sex offenders to roam free rather than spend time in prison. This dominated the news agenda over the whole four-day bank holiday weekend, with the party leader, Sir Keir Starmer doubling down with an article in the Daily Mail on Monday. Many (probably most) of their party’s loyal supporters were unimpressed with this descent into gutter politics. The Guardian‘s Marina Hyde was vicious in her criticism. But that only served to stir the pot some more. This has all the hallmarks of an orchestrated campaign, and in its own terms it was an outstanding success.

I’m not repeating the ad here, as it has benefited enough from extra exposure by critics and neutrals. Instead I give an earlier example of this type of campaign advertising – this time from Vote Leave in the 2016 referendum campaign. Turkey was, and still is, a candidate country to join the European Union, so Vote Leave could claim some tangential factual accuracy. But there was no actual prospect of its application succeeding, and Britain could have vetoed its accession anyway (though, to be fair, the British government wasn’t inclined to, unlike the government of France and several others). But the ad played to fears of a new wave of immigrants under the EU’s freedom of movement rules – and olive-skinned Muslims at that. The Labour ad’s facts are just as tangential, and it is even more fundamentally untrue. But the Vote Leave ad was regarded as a big success, for all the furore (in fact partly because of it), and so the political professionals seek to emulate it. These professionals have Sir Keir’s ear and they are doubtless very pleased with themselves.

The aim of the ad isn’t to persuade people that Mr Sunak actually thinks that child sex offenders shouldn’t go to prison, or even to persuade people that Labour would be much different. It is to neutralise Conservative attempts to paint Labour as soft on crime. It draws attention to the government’s generally dismal record on public services, which certainly includes the police and the courts, to point out that Tory claims on law and order don’t add up to much. If readers cynically shrug and say “They’re all the same”, then the ad will have done its work. Complaints by liberal types only go to show that the Labour leadership is made of different stuff. Indeed to be complained about by Guardian readers is a badge of honour that the leadership of both main parties seek as free and welcome publicity. This is utterly depressing for people on the left of politics.

Some are suggesting that this tack by Labour might backfire, though. The New Statesman reports one Labour adviser as saying “…it won’t work because we won’t win from the gutter – our biggest problem is not failing to attack Rishi, it’s lacking a positive alternative vision – and because dredging up past records won’t end well for Keir. The Tories will go to town with his DPP record.” But that is to misunderstand the strategy. Labour is defending a very healthy poll lead; all it needs to do is prevent the Tories from changing people’s minds, and either staying at home or voting for Labour as the lesser evil. The party will doubtless throw in abundant positive stuff about green growth and so on later in the campaign. But for now they are more worried about Tory negative campaigning and feel that the best way of neutralising this is in negative campaigns of their own. The Tories are going to go to town on Sir Keir’s record as Director of Public Prosecutions anyway.

Another worry for some is that Labour ranks are divided about these tactics, right up to shadow cabinet level. Yvette Cooper, the Shadow Home Secretary, is being briefed against, and is keeping her head down. Instead Labour fielded Emily Thornberry, the shadow attorney general, for media interviews as she evidently wants Ms Cooper’s job. I’m not sure this matters too much if Sir Keir is clearly in charge. Ms Cooper will go quietly out of loyalty – a pity because she probably has more of the sort of administrative competence that Labour will need badly once in power.

And, of course, Labour have no convincing solution to Britain’s law and order crisis without promising more public spending, which they won’t do for fear of Tory attacks on tax rises. Ms Thornberry collapsed spectacularly when pressed on this by her BBC interviewer on the World at One radio programme on Monday; “We’re optimists,” was the best she could do. No marks to the BBC for tamely following Labour’s manipulation of the news agenda, but full marks for its challenging Ms Thornberry robustly. But Labour seem to have got away with it.

Taking the moral high ground is not a successful political strategy. Nothing attracts sneering political and media criticism more. The Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg tried it in the 2010 general election; it generated a brief spurt of popularity, but ultimately turned him into the most hated person in British politics. Jeremy Corbyn, Sir Keir’s predecessor as Labour leader also tried it. This brought him some success in the 2017 general election, against Theresa May, a slightly more scrupulous Conservative leader. But against the entirely unscrupulous Boris Johnson Mr Cornbyn fared hardly better than Mr Clegg. Sir Keir seems to have flirted with the high ground (as Ms Hyde pointed out in her Guardian article), but has wisely decided against it.

It is possible to overdo the negative. The Conservatives are widely thought to have done this with their attacks on Tony Blair in 1997, though these were particularly inept. But this seems hard to do. Britain’s electoral system makes this worse: it encourages a focus on small groups of swing voters, where persuading the other side’s supporters to stay at home is part of the game. Loyal supporters provide campaigners and foot soldiers, but are ignored otherwise. Labour’s grassroots are repeatedly being trodden underfoot by their leadership, and may be unwilling to put much effort into the political ground campaign. Doubtless Labour’s strategists feel they are dispensable – and that enough of them will seek the tribal reward for beating the Tories (and Lib Dems) to do what is needed.

Are we condemned to this sort of politics forever? The public may hate high-minded politicians even more than the regular low-life, but they don’t like politicians generally. If Labour flounders in government, this could generate a backlash against politics generally. If this could be channelled into political reform (with the country’s flirtation with populism evidently exhausted by the Brexit saga), and electoral reform in particular, this might lead somewhere. This did happen in New Zealand in the 1990s. But I wouldn’t bet on it.

Tax and immigration will be the key issues between Labour and the Conservatives

Graphic: Statista.com

After Jeremy Corbyn, Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, and the post-2017 version of Theresa May, most Britons have been yearning for a time when their main party leaders were ordinary competent politicians. But now Sir Keir Starmer has taken over the Labour Party and Rishi Sunak the Tories, that day has come. Both men had less political experience than their leadership positions normally warrant, and accordingly had uncertain starts, but now both are now hitting their stride. It promises to be a fascinating, if unedifying, contest, at least for those who follow politics as a spectator sport without worrying too much for the consequences for the country.

Sir Keir matured first. Indeed earlier this year he decided that he had to hammer Mr Sunak’s apparent weakness as hard as he could. I was uncomfortable with this: it didn’t matter to Sir Keir whether the attacks were well grounded or not – he ruthlessly went for the man rather than the policy. It seems unpatriotic to keep undermining your country’s prime minister just for the hell of it. But that’s politics – Mr Sunak would not hesitate to do the same if the roles were reversed.

Mr Sunak has survived this, and it is Sir Kier who has lost momentum as a result. The turning point came with his renegotiation of the Northern Ireland Protocol that had been spoiling relations with the European Union. This was a thoroughly competent piece of statecraft that moved things along. Few doubted that this deal was the best that Britain could get – and opponents seemed to be the sort that did not really want resolution at all. Better still, Mr Sunak was successful in selling this to his own party. Only 22 MPs voted against it in parliament – with many formerly troublesome Eurosceptics lining up behind Mr Sunak. That both Mr Johnson and Ms Truss were amongst those 22 underlined just how little threat his predecessors now pose. The deal has not convinced the Democratic Unionist Party to rejoin the Stormont government – but most observers thought that nothing was going to pass that test that would not cause even bigger problems in the province. In UK terms the DUP is very isolated.

That’s a good start. Mr Sunak had earlier set out five priority areas for his administration: inflation, NHS waiting lists, growth, national debt and “small boats” – the influx of illegal migrants across the Channel. It was widely assumed that his specific pledges on these issues were designed to be easy to pass – but with the economy poised on an awkward knife-edge, this should not be assumed. He needs to do two things if he is to a reasonable chance of winning the next general election, widely assumed to be in the autumn of 2024. The first is to win back the Brexit-voting, conservative working class and lower middle class voters that flocked to the party in 2019 – many of these are telling pollsters that they will abstain or vote for a protest party such as Reform UK. To these he needs to show that he is true to the Brexit vision, and especially on immigration; these voters, who tend to be older and retired, may be not so sensitive to the economy, but they are sensitive to the NHS and crime. The second thing is to win back or win over Labour- and Liberal Democrats-inclined floating voters with a less conservative political outlook, who generally voted Remain, but who were put off by Labour under Mr Corbyn. For these voters a display of competence is critical.

Sir Keir Starmer starts ahead, with substantial poll leads, following the Johnson and Truss fiascos. He may also have had a stroke of luck in Scotland. Scottish seats used to be critical to Labour’s success, but the party was wiped out there by the SNP in 2015, and then they struggled against resurgent Conservatives. But now the SNP seems to be imploding after Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation as leader. To watchers from south of the border this episode has all the hallmarks of a bloodletting and collapse after a long period of imposed stability – all Britain’s main parties experience this from time to time. Things are always a bit different in Scotland. Pro-independence voters don’t have many convincing alternatives – Alba and the Greens each have issues of their own. But the case for independence will have taken a temporary knock, and Labour is prevailing over the Conservatives in the anti-independence camp, with a stronger appeal to independence-waverers. A resurgence by Labour there would be doubly good news for Sir Keir. It makes winning an overall majority in the UK much easier for him, and it reduces the risk of the SNP holding the balance of power in a hung parliament – which would be a nightmare outcome, and a prospect that might scare the voters too. But for all this lead, Sir Keir knows that a lot can go wrong, and that the electoral system is in many ways tilted against him.

A lot of how the battle will play out is obvious. Labour will attack the government for incompetence on just about any issue that comes up, regardless of how justified the complaint may be. The Conservatives try to divert the blame onto world events and cast doubts on Labour as being soft lefties. Most of this be just noise to voters and unlikely to change minds. Beyond this I think there are two issues where voters’ are more open, and which could cause a shift in balance between the parties: tax and immigration.

Tax-and-spend arguments are as close as we’ll get to a debate over economic strategy. We will not get any kind of sensible discussion of economics, of course – even though there is an interesting debate to be had between the parties. Labour’s approach tends to focus on macro-economic policy. The priorities for them are ensuring that aggregate demand is sufficient to ensure low unemployment and decent bargaining conditions for workers, and getting decent headline figures for investment. The Tories rather focus on microeconomics – the idea that prosperity must be based on the efficiency of businesses and public agencies and how hard we work – where the question of incentives and competition loom large. Instead of that, the Conservatives will accuse Labour of wanting to dramatically increase public spending, leading to higher taxes and a less productive economy. They remember fondly John Major’s success with the “Tax Bombshell” campaign in the last week or so of the 1992 general election, when fortunes suddenly turned in their favour. The problem for Labour is that almost all public services are crying out for more spending, and it is very hard not to criticise the government without suggesting a substantial increase. Which leads to the question how you pay for it. This question is dealt with as if a nation’s budget operated like a household one, which is far from how it actually works. But it is too hard to try to explain that extra public spending might simply lead to better use of the economy’s resources and higher wages, and not necessarily to higher taxes. This argument is in any case a lot shakier when inflation is taking hold, as it is now.

The obvious answer is for Labour to try and sell the idea of higher taxes in order to have more effective public services at a time when the ratio of working people is falling. The tax burden may be at a historical high as a proportion of national income, but it is still moderate by European standards. There is even polling evidence that this has majority support. But Labour still carry the scars from 1992 (and indeed 2019) when the Conservatives successfully scared many floating voters with the prospect of higher taxes. Instead they want to follow Tony Blair’s and Gordon Brown’s strategy of 1997 of promising to hold back taxes and spending – and then increase both after the second term, when people are more used to the idea of a Labour government. Meanwhile they will try to dream up a number of painless taxes on other people to pay for selected areas of higher spending – non-doms, oil companies and so on. Against this the Conservatives will try to promise that better public services can come without higher taxes; since many voters are under financial stress, they will not relish the prospect of higher taxs. The arguments of both parties are unconvincing, and it is hard to see which way the public mood will swing.

Neither party is convincing on immigration either. There is panic over the number of people trying to cross the Channel in small boats, and then claiming asylum. Actually this is a real enough problem: overall numbers may be modest by the standards of international refugee flows, but it is placing public resources under pressure, and and it is a bit of a slam-dunk for organised crime. Immigration is not a top issue for voters according to opinion polls in the way it has been in the past. But both parties know that with the chaotic situation in the Channel, it can be pushed up the agenda easily enough. Housing the refugees (and others) while their claims are processed is creating stresses right across the country. Mr Sunak knows that he needs to do two things. To motivate conservative working class voters (and a lot of conservative middle class ones come to that), he needs to promote a tough line that will be hard for Labour to follow. The second thing is that he needs to make a substantial dent in the numbers making the crossing – to demonstrate competence, and woo back more liberal floating voters, as well as convincing those conservative voter that he isn’t just grandstanding. The first of these things is going well enough. The Home Secretary makes a good hate figure for liberal types, who make all the noise that Mr Sunak needs to demonstrate his toughness. But few understand how he is going to achieve much in the way of actual results, though. The much vaunted scheme to deport migrants to Rwanda does not look remotely adequate to deal with the sort of flows that we are seeing, even after the government has bulldozed the legal objections.

The Tories can sense Labour weakness here. Sir Keir has one sensible idea – to make legal routes for refugees more accessible, and the processing quicker, and so reduce demand and the numbers having to be put up in temporary accommodation. This means increasing legal flows of refugees, which will annoy many – but it does tackle the disorderly aspect of the current situation, which is what is most dangerous. But it is a stretch to think that this will stop the flow of channel boats by itself. The incentives for people traffickers remain strong. The only thing that might work there is rapid return of the migrants to France or elsewhere in Europe. But why would the Europeans agree to that? Only a substantial change to legal routes for refugees might possibly unlock that. that would be too brave.

It is hard to discern public attitudes to immigration post Brexit. There are two competing visions. The first is the Japanese one: that any immigration disturbs the cultural identity of the country and undermines social cohesion – as well as placing stress on housing and public services. So numbers of immigrants should be kept low, and definitely reduced. Or there is the Canadian/Australian vision, which accepts the desirability of substantial flows of immigrants, including refugees (at least in the case of the Canadians) – but wants the flow to be orderly – and abhors the idea of queue-jumping by unregulated arrivals. The small boats are abhorrent to both – but there any agreement ends. Both visions seem to have substantial support, and it is hard to see which way the zeitgeist will go. Labour seem to be more clearly pitching for the Australian/Canadian position, which is popular amongst the immigrant communities themselves – while the Conservatives are trying to play both visions at once. And as with tax, it is hard to see which side will end up on top.

There is a third issue which has the potential to sway voters: the environment. This covers not just the mission to reduce carbon emissions, but also threats to the countryside through habitat loss and pollution (and especially sewage overflows). The government is under attack for competence, as well as its heart not really being in it. But Mr Sunak has left it out of his five key targets – so presumably his party’s polling shows that this is not a critical issue. Labour are making a lot of the idea of green growth – but this may be more to motivate their core supporters than to win points over the opposition.

It will be an interesting contest. My guess is that sir Keir will prevail decisively. Whenever I try to write “Sunak” my computer changes it to “sunk”; I think he is, such is the low regard his party is held in by the voters..

Guest post: AUKUS – more than just submarines

US Virginia class nuclear submarine.
Picture: By U.S. Navy photo by General Dynamics Electric Boat – This image was released by the United States Navy with the ID 040730-N-1234E-002 (next). https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=8224242

By Cllr Noel Hadjimichael

More than 100 years ago, Liberals were often the party challenging military spending, security and defence of the realm. We took Britain into the First World War in defence of an invaded Belgium and served in the 1940s Churchill Government. We got defence and voters knew it.

In the Cold War, we were champions of pluralism, liberty, decolonisation and western values. This was in opposition to USSR state centralism so loved by many current day dictators. We were, and remain, realists: radical but responsible.

This week’s announcement on a tripartite (Australian, American and British) submarine deal is not the subject of this blog. However, the framework, context and geopolitics behind the announcement is. Progressives, social democrats and liberals should take notice. 

What has made three of the Five Eyes [also including Canada and New Zealand] turn so purposefully and publicly in this direction? The answer: defence science, capacity building, capital investment and operational structures. Realigned, tweaked and reinforced for today’s threats.

It is more than just the behaviour of Russia, China or Iran. It is a breakdown of the liberal world order that has positioned Britain poorly in this post Brexit era. There is a new global security setting that was unleashed by the pandemic: rogue states undermining democracy, leading to peer to peer warfare. 

Neither the Conservatives nor Labour have a monopoly on patriotism. Serving personnel and their families (as well as veterans) are a sizeable demographic in many constituencies. Not just the South West shires, Norfolk, the Midlands or natural cities like Portsmouth. In every region of the United Kingdom, there is an increase in voter concern about our security (food, logistics, technology or military). 

The war in Ukraine has heightened our focus. But so has the poisoning in Salisbury and the cyber attacks on our critical infrastructure. 

The AUKUS framework is a long term and strategic pressure point to revisit our defence stance. We should ask ourselves: how do we protect our people, communities and institutions? 

We don’t do borders well. Just ask the Government about its frustrating failures on Ireland or the Channel. 

We don’t have the luxury of being the dominant global leader. But we still rank highly in critical capabilities: soft power, science and technology. 

Our people are universally respected for professionalism, training and creativity. They deserve our resolve to get the politics correct.

Our new aircraft carriers have effective and demonstrable reach to the western hemisphere, the Straits of Hormuz, the Asia Pacific and beyond. Our airpower is critical to NATO and the European friends and allies many of us yearn to be closer to. Our Army is still seen as having the punch needed in the field. It has also offered Ukraine best in class training. We count. We matter in this space.

Understanding the new challenges and being the adults in the room come naturally to LibDems. We think, talk and debate. 

We also often come down on the side of evidence, experts and the engaged voter. 

Conference at York this weekend will deal with the nuclear deterrent. A sensible and suitable proposal. Those serving deserve our thanks and gratitude for their commitment. We as active party members must also play our part. We should reassure millions of LibDem voters that we understand the current global landscape.

As it is. Not as we may want it to be. 

AUKUS is part of that landscape, as is an effective and continuous at sea deterrent. 

Question it, challenge it but don’t ignore it. It is the same with our Conference. A liberal Britain is worth defending.

More on this can be found on nlcdefence.org.uk

Noel is Chair of the Defence & Security Circe of the National Liberal Club London. He is also a Liberal Democrat councillor on the London Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames

Weak leadership gets the BBC into trouble

Nadine Dorries – who gave an astonishing interview on World at One

The BBC is one of my main sources of news, but it often annoys me. Recently I wrote that the choice for mainstream media is either partisan and useless (like Fox News) or impartial and dumbed-down – like the BBC. But now it seems that pressure from Conservative politicians is making the institution erratic, and editorial management weak.

The narrative amongst British conservatives has for some time that the BBC is part of a liberal elite, which also includes the civil service, that constantly undermines conservative policies, which represent the will of most people. This narrative became politically dominant after the Brexit referendum, and seemingly unassailable with the landslide victory for Boris Johnson’s Conservatives in December 2019. Pressure on the BBC mounted, as the government sought to influence senior appointments and news coverage. The outcome has not been more rightwing bias, though, so much as weak editorial leadership.

This was illustrated recently by the news that the Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer, was in the process of recruiting the senior civil servant Sue Gray to be his chief of staff. This was a pretty unremarkable episode of itself. Unlike most British politicians, Sir Keir is not a lifelong career politician – he had a substantial career as a lawyer in government service – a “securicrat” I have seen it called. It is easy to spot an affinity with another career securicrat like Ms Gray, though she is not a lawyer – they had known each other professionally for some time, apparently. The move shows that he is serious about the business of becoming prime minister. It also shows that senior civil servants, among others, think that he has a serious chance of doing just that. Senior civil servants have taken up this role before, for both Labour’s Tony Blair (Jonathan Powell) and the Conservative David Cameron (Jeremy Heywood, though he had a more overt relationship with the Conservatives). Nevertheless many Conservatives were incandescent at the news. This is doubtless because it is an intimation of their own political mortality – after such a dramatic fall from their seeming invincibility after the 2019 election. They suggested that it threatened the impartiality of the civil service – though their usual complaint is that the civil service isn’t biased enough. Their argument isn’t really sustainable, but it is at least arguable. That cannot be said for the line attempted by some supporters of Mr Johnson, who suggested that the report on parties at 10 Downing Street during lockdown prepared by Ms Gray was part of a malign conspiracy that caused Mr Johnson’s resignation. This is so wrong-headed, on so many levels, that it hardly needs refuting. Suffice it to point out that Ms Gary’s report was much delayed and pulled its punches, allowing the former prime minister to escape until his next series of blunders.

So there was a political kerfuffle, and clearly the BBC had to report it. But I was astonished when immediately following the news on Radio 4’s World at One, the BBC aired a long and unchallenging interview with Nadine Dorries, a former minister under Mr Johnson, in which she aired the conspiracy theory, and several clear untruths about the affair. Even the BBC admitted that the interview “in hindsight” should have been a bit more challenging – though the whole thing was so mad and implausible, challenge was hardly required. It was a display of astonishingly bad editorial judgement, which can only be explained by the sort of hidden political machinations that so often lie behind the BBC’s news agenda (which, to be fair, don’t just benefit one party or faction). What was even more astonishing was that in the flagship Ten O’Clock News on BBC television that evening the whole story barely rated half a throwaway sentence from one the political correspondents. If it was top story at 1pm, surely it counted for something at 10pm?

Alas this sort of muddle is becoming typical. But the BBC then became engulfed in a much more serious episode. The government last week launched a policy on what it calls “small boats”, headlined “Stop The Boats”, which, among other things, is designed to cancel asylum claims from refugees crossing the English Channel in dinghies. This policy deserves a post all of its own – though I’m a bit more sympathetic to the government than most other liberals. This generated the political controversy it was designed to. During the general shouting BBC sports presenter Gary Lineker tweeted his outrage at the policy, and compared the language used to justify it to 1930s Germany. There is a debate to be had, if anybody is interested, as to how far this claim is justified. The Holocaust came in the 1940s: Mr Lineker was talking about the propaganda that preceded it, building up the conditions that allowed it to happen. Still, the government has never encouraged violence against refugees. Actually, as the FT’s Stephen Bush points out, the government’s approach can be more fairly compared to 1930s Britain, who ignored the plight of refugees from Nazi Germany, on the grounds that it was somebody else’s problem (as did almost every other country in the world). The usual suspects complained that this was an outrageous act for a BBC personality, and undermined the institution’s impartiality. They’d had Mr Lineker’s card marked for some time as a member of the sinister liberal elite.

The BBC Director General responded by withdrawing Mr Lineker from his presentation of Match of the Day the following weekend. He had breached BBC guidelines – or as it guidance? Normally BBC guidelines allow freelance sports presenters to express political opinions – anything else would be an outrageous infringement. But they had been modified to impose extra standards on big stars. This undoubtedly applied to Mr Lineker, the BBC’s best-paid presenter (best-paid anything, I think). In fact I suspect this policy was adopted with Mr Lineker in mind after an earlier round of complaints. This turned a minor media skirmish into a major news story – as Mr Lineker’s colleagues pulled out of the BBC’s weekend sports coverage. They couldn’t even give us the main football scores on the evening TV news. It wasn’t hard for critics of the BBC to point out inconsistencies in the way the BBC applied its guidance (the political presenter Andrew Neil was an oft-quoted example). More to the point, the episode had clearly touched a raw nerve amongst BBC journalists, doubtless including many who disagreed with Mr Lineker’s expressed view.

I haven’t seen any public polling on the issue. Many people have been cheering Mr Lineker on. Many more feel that a sports presenter should be allowed to express political views. Conservatives often make pleas for freedom of speech for “politically incorrect” views – and it’s hard even for them to understand why this should be an exception. Opposition parties have piled in criticising the BBC management – though they mostly draw a connection with a row over the apparently politically connected appointment of BBC Chairman, an entirely separate episode. The top priority for Conservatives seems to be to re-energise their more conservative supporters, who are in a funk; they seem less bothered by trying to win back more liberal former supporters. If that is so they shouldn’t be too worried by the political fall-out. Still, liberal supporters aren’t just a tiny elite, and if can’t be good for the government to keep crossing the street to slap them in the face.

But for the BBC, the episode shows what happens if you keep giving in to political pressure. You don’t just get fairly harmless nonsenses like the Nadine Dorries interview: you ultimately lose credibility.

Nicola Sturgeon: a very British politician

Picture: Scottish Government, CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

I was going to title this blog “A very British failure”; this follows a lot of the political commentary here in England on the Scottish First Minister, after she announced her resignation. She has been one of the most successful British politicians of this century so far, and she is leaving on her own terms. She has taken the Scottish National Party from its defeat in the independence referendum in 2014 to complete political domination north of the border. Her communication skills have won her plaudits across the whole country, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic, putting to shame occupants of 10 Downing Street. This can hardly be called failure.

And yet. There are two clouds on Nicola Sturgeon’s reputation. The first is that she has not succeeded in winning a second referendum on independence, let alone victory at that referendum. The British government has refused, and there does not seem seem to be majority demand for it in Scotland either. And the problem is a bit deeper than that, so far as independence is concerned – there is no clear majority for the move. Younger voters are in favour, though, so this may just be a matter of patience. The second cloud is that she and her party have made no progress on improving public services north of the border. For people (like me) who advocate decentralising public services, Scottish (and indeed Welsh) devolution provide no support. During the pandemic Ms Sturgeon may have been an excellent communicator, but the outcome, including the death rate, was no better than England’s. The Scottish NHS is beset by the same long waiting lists and overstretch as England’s; Glasgow has one of the worst drug problems in the developed world; Scotland’s school standards trail England’s.

It can be no surprise that Ms Sturgeon’s record on delivery is a weak one: she is a pure, careerist politician. She was active with the SNP from a young age; she did train and qualify as a solicitor, but by 29 she was a full-time member of the Scottish Parliament. In this career path she is little different from most other British politicians. And the situation appears to be getting no better. Those vying to succeed her are of the same ilk. With little flair for actually running things, such politicians gravitate to what they are good at: politicking and communicating. For Ms Sturgeon that meant elevating the issue of independence to be of all-consuming importance – though without properly addressing the practical questions that arose from it. In England the issue of EU membership has been similarly elevated, as a distraction from administrative competence, or as a way of undermining those in power. Culture wars play a similar role in America. In Scotland, the government has also placed a lot of energy into changing the law on transgender issues, partly at the insistence of their Green allies. This is the sort of “values” issue that professional politicians favour – though there are administrative issues there too, but these tend not be well dealt with.

In Scotland, the SNP has devoted much energy to consolidating its hold on political power by, for example, disempowering local government. Meanwhile it has not taken on the vested interests in public services as vigorously as it should. They did push through a major reform of policing (to centralise it); this did have some merit, but it did not go well, or not at first. I find the lack of progress in education standards the most shocking, though, perhaps because I know about what this entails. It isn’t rocket science: what is required is rigorous accountability down to school level, measuring the progress of every child. The techniques are well-established, and huge progress has been made in England, though some areas have made more progress than others. But this is unpopular with teaching unions, and the Scottish government seems to have been unwilling to take them on.

The SNP, of course, has a ready excuse for its poor track record: it’s the fault of the union with Britain. But this is unconvincing. It is hard to see how an independent Scotland would have access to more money for public services, especially now that North Sea oil and gas is in decline, and politically tainted because of climate change. If the Scottish government wants to show some of the administrative flair of its nordic neighbours, such as Norway, Sweden or Denmark, why doesn’t it try and get started now, rather than waiting for independence to arrive? Wouldn’t that make the case more convincingly?

And yet we can’t be too hard on her or the SNP, because all Britain’s political parties are like this. Scotland is mired in a very British set of problems. And yet breaking away from the United Kingdom offers no escape from the country’s essential Britishness.

Brexit: the capitalist advocates have been proved wrong

Picture: Institute for Government

The third anniversary of Britain leaving the European Union caused of a spate of comment in the media a couple of weeks ago. For me it was a moment of great sadness, but I’m trying to move on – though I still wish political destruction on every politician that advocated it. But it is as good a moment as any to reflect on what has happened.

Opinion surveys show that people who voted to stay in still think they were right to do so. They think that the arguments made in favour of staying in have been borne out. Some of those who voted to leave feel they made the wrong choice, though. But mostly they don’t – they think that it is too early to tell, or that the opportunities have been mis-handled, or they are actually happy with they way things have unfolded. What unites most from both sides is a sense of gloom, and a lack of confidence in the government. Another thing that seems to unite both sides is a wish not to reopen the debate.

In terms of the economic statistics it is very hard to isolate any economic effect of the change, especially when the Covid pandemic, the war in Ukraine, and the escalation of energy prices is confuses the picture. There is abundant anecdotal evidence that smaller British businesses have given up exporting to the European Union, or indeed to anywhere. But the aggregate trade statistics don’t paint such a clear picture. Investment has fallen since the referendum result: Brexit is an obvious culprit but it would be hard to prove it.

But if we step away from the economic statistics, some things are becoming clearer about Brexit. It isn’t too early to look at how the reality is working out against the vision. There never was a single vision, though. I can see three main ones: the globalist case, the isolationist case and the socialist case. The globalist case is the closest to the one the government espouses. This regarded the EU as a barrier to trade and free enterprise, for two main reasons. Firstly it entailed a substantial regulatory burden, covering not just products, but the way they were made (for example labour and environmental standards), and this raised costs. And second the EU raised barriers to trade with countries outside the union, which included rapidly growing markets in Asia in particular. Britain could be a country of free-wheeling (or even buccaneering) enterprise. Sometimes this was called “Singapore on Thames” – apparently by people who had little idea what of Singapore actually is – though doubtless an authoritarian, technocratic one-party state with a taste for intrusion into private life actually appealed to many of them.

It is becoming clearer by the day that this idea is nonsense. British people draw comfort from regulation, and every attempt to lighten the burden is met by howls of protest. And it is far from clear that changing regulation will have an economically beneficial effect in more than a few limited areas. Indeed it seems to many that life outside the EU involves more red tape, not less – for imports and exports, travel and immigration. Meanwhile almost all trade deals so far struck with countries outside the EU are little different from what the country had inside. The exceptions are Australia and New Zealand, which will have little impact, and probably not much that is positive for British businesses (but maybe better for British consumers). Doing deals with China, India and America – the big prizes, has proved much harder than envisioned. Brexit supporters are now talking darkly of a conspiracy of Remain-supporting establishment types undermining progress – but a lot of the trouble comes from their on side (especially so far s reactions with India and China are concerned). But the logic never was very convincing. The kindest suggestion is that it is 20 years too late – perhaps there would have been more to play for when globalisation was going full throttle, rather than in its current gentle retreat.

But it is unlikely the most people who voted for Brexit shared this vision. They were drawn to an idea of Britain that was less integrated with the world around it, not more. This was focused on one idea in particular: “control over our borders” – limitations to immigration, rather than the free movement within the union. Supporters of this idea, like Nigel Farage of Ukip and the Brexit Party, did not point to any other countries as a model: Britain was one of a kind. Perhaps some people thought of Australia, a fiercely independent Anglo-Saxon heritage nation, with strict immigration rules. Suggesting an “Australian-style points system” to manage immigration received widespread approval, even though few people understood it or its implications. Another model might be Japan. Japan is an island that trades with its giant continental neighbour, China, but emphatically maintains its distance politically. It limits immigration, and, whisper it, prides itself on ethnic homogeneity (unlike modern Australia). It is also a highly successful country, that scores well on many indicators of quality of life. Economic growth in the last thirty years has been anaemic, but that only invites the question of what economic growth is for.

How is Britain doing under this isolationist vision? Free movement of people between Britain and Europe is now gone; many people from other European countries have left, and immigration from there is is now a trickle. All immigration is now subject to bureaucratic controls. If labour shortages have resulted, then this may simply be a first step towards giving local workers more opportunities. On this vision, things are going much better. There are three problems, though. One is an influx of refugees and others arriving in small boats on the Kent coast. I don’t think anybody had expected this to be so much harder to manage outside the union than within it; but the country can’t simply deport people back to France as it could before. This has turned into a major headache, especially for the authorities in Kent, and there are no convincing solutions that don’t involve doing a deal with the EU, which would involve accepting many more refugees legally, and undoing one of the perceived benefits of Brexit to isolationists. It is possible to take a bigger view of this: even allowing for this influx the country is taking fewer refugees than before. Unfortunately for the government, people supporting the isolationist view tend not to get such things in perspective. It is undoubtedly disorderly – though chicken feed to what Italy or Greece have to deal with.

A second issue is that, notwithstanding the hurdles, immigration has not reduced overall. Instead of people arriving from the EU, they are coming in from elsewhere. Fortunately for the government, the public seems much less stressed by this than by the boats. It is a relatively orderly flow of people after all, and by and large they are going into better-paid (or “high-skilled”) jobs that the economy needs, or paying extortionate student fees. But it does complicate the scorecard. The government can’t claim reduced immigration as a Brexit achievement. Indeed, every idea for reducing numbers, like cutting back on foreign students, looks like self-harm.

The third problem is that real wages are in steep decline, as inflation runs ahead of increases in pay. And the government is aiding and abetting this by putting maximum pressure on public sector pay. Brexit was supposed to increase wages by stopping low-skilled immigration. Perhaps supporters of the isolationist case, often retired, aren’t so bothered. But it is a long way from the case made for Brexit at the time of the referendum.

All this is indicative of a hole in the heart of the isolationist case. Australia has abundant natural resources it can exploit (or pillage, if you prefer – sustainability is not high on the Aussie agenda); Japan has a manufacturing industry that is still world-beating. There are world-beating bits of the British economy, but not enough. Nostalgia won’t bring back Britain’s once world-class manufacturing industry. Coal, oil and gas are in steep decline, if not dead. And some of the successful bits of the economy, like global financial services, benefit few, in the wrong parts the country, and have a distinctly dark side (the country was very popular with Russian oligarchs for a reason). The country has been running a current account deficit for over two decades, and, notwithstanding the depreciation of sterling, it isn’t getting any better. This turns out to be more sustainable than many economists thought – in the sense that it does not seem to be leading to the sort of financial instability that other deficit countries (like Argentina or Turkey) have suffered. But it does seem to be affecting the country’s terms of trade – though it is statistically hard to pin this down. According to one calculation the country’s real effective exchange rate is 83% of what it was in 2005 (i.e a fall of 17%). British people can buy less foreign goods and services with each hour’s earnings than used to be the case. There isn’t enough high-productivity, export-generating industry in the country. This problem has its roots in the relative industrial decline of the 1950s to 1970s, and the hollowing out of the the manufacturing economy under Margaret Thatcher. This largely pre-dates membership of the EU, and arguably was made worse by it. But somehow it was easier to cover the cracks within the Union.

The third case for Brexit I mentioned is the socialist one. This case has not yet been tested. According to this the EU is a capitalist-designed, anti-democratic system that prevents governments for taking their economies in a socialist direction. Not all (or even most) socialists followed held this view – hoping to reform the union from within – but its logic is solid enough. Holders of this view are fiercely defensive of national sovereignty – their aim being to take democratic control of the country, and drive through radical reform from there. Their economic reform ideas are not particularly popular (though perhaps not that unpopular either), but their ideas about national sovereignty are widely shared. Ironically, since the main advocates of Brexit were at the more aggressive end of capitalism, it is perhaps socialist policies that present the main national opportunities after Brexit. These will not fix the country’s export problem – export industries, other than mining or drilling perhaps, tend to need capitalist leadership succeed. But it may set in train a fairer distribution of income and wealth. I suspect that there is a hybrid of modern socialist and liberal ideas that could lead to a thriving society – and perhaps it is easier to pursue that path outside the EU, though I doubt it would make all that much difference. Other European citizens would be at least as interested in such ideas as the British are. Alas there are too few people anywhere who are pushing in that direction.

Is Liz Truss right about the “economic establishment”?

UK Treasury: Picture by Carlos Delgado, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=19020165

Last weekend former British prime minister Liz Truss reentered the public sphere with an essay in the Sunday Telegraph, and an interview with The Spectator, publications that are both relatively sympathetic to her cause. This has occasioned much derision in the wider media. While I share much of this derisive view of her, I’m not going to join the chorus – it’s been said too well by others. Ms Truss has simply reminded most people why they dislike her so much. I want talk about the issues she raises, both in terms of economic policy, and how it can be implemented in Britain’s institutional environment.

Ms Truss’s starting point is what is widely seen as the UK’s dismal economic performance since the great financial crisis of 2008-09. Economic growth has been dismal, and if Britain has been able to maintain the pre-crisis trend of growth, then, according to Tim Harford in the Financial Times, it would be a staggering 40% better off. She attributes this to policy mistakes – a view that seems to be widely shared, even if not many agree on what those mistakes were. Personally, I differ from this – I think that the lack of growth is a reflection of adverse economic conditions, which started before the crisis – principally demographics and a changed world trade environment, made worse by Britain’s lack of a strong manufacturing industry. Liz Truss’s solution is to go back to policies popularised by the US president Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, and often attributed to Britain’s Margaret Thatcher too, though in fact she was much more cautious. These are mainly a matter of tax cuts, especially for businesses and the well-off, and deregulation. What she particularly favours is to proceed with tax cuts without regard to short-term effects on the public budget deficit, in the belief that an expanding economy will make things good in the longer run. She was always reluctant to talk about cutting public spending, and in the case of defence, advocated a substantial increase.

Her views on tax are largely magical thinking. Tax cuts might directly stimulate growth by increasing demand, but not as efficiently as many other policies, such as more generous state benefits, and not at a time when inflation is running riot. Lower corporate taxes might attract inward investment – but they are not widely thought to be a major factor, especially when the country’s politics seem so unstable. To her credit, though, apart from tax cuts, she advocated supply-side reforms that stand a much better change of promoting growth. These included easing immigration rules and making it easier for parents of small children to reenter the labour market. These weren’t popular in her own party, though. In her speech to the Conservative Party conference she decried an anti-growth coalition – which it struck many observers as being mostly her own party. However, her supply-side ideas had nothing like the heft to make more than a small difference to the country’s growth rate. Tax cuts (or forgoing tax increases) were her only big idea.

She has a second huge blind spot: inflation. She does not appear to understand that this usually arises from excess economic demand – and therefore that taming it requires deliberately crimping economic growth. She persistently seemed to think that inflation was somebody else’s problem – in particular the Bank of England’s. I find it astonishing that somebody whose degree course included economics (PPE at Oxford) can have thought this way. Everything interacts with everything else, and if you are the head of government, you are ultimately responsible for all the tools of macroeconomic management. What individuals do with their personal time may not be government’s problem; what public institutions do most assuredly is, even if they are run at arms length.

But amid all this foolishness and and failure to understand how things actually work, she did touch on something that is true. She railed against the “economic establishment” (the Sunday Telegraph unhelpfully added “left-wing” to this in their headline, but she neither said that nor meant it). She was particularly vehement about Treasury orthodoxy, which she saw at first hand in two years as a Treasury minister. The power of this orthodoxy undermines, usually fatally, any attempt to implement policy that contradicts it. That included her fiscal policies. They didn’t have her back when things got rough, and they forced an about-turn on most of them. What is a bit less clear is how Ms Truss fits the people controlling the world’s financial markets into this orthodoxy. She and her supporters are trying to blame the derivative based policies used by many pension funds for creating an unstable situation, about which nobody warned her or her Chancellor, Kwasi Kwateng. The Bank of England, also part of the orthodoxy, should have handled this better, they suggest. Rather interestingly, when she describes these polices as allowing the funds to invest more in businesses rather than bonds, they sound like just the sort of pro-growth idea she should be supporting. Of course the real problem here was the imperious arrogance with which she and Mr Kwateng treated financial markets. And as for the Bank of England, it was widely known that it was struggling to manage markets because inflation had caused a reversal of its loose-money policies, especially Quantitative Easing, upon which markets had come to depend..

I have some radical economic ideas of my own, though quite unlike Ms Truss’s. These are that Britain is far too centralised, and that responsibility for the many trade-offs required in financial and wider policy need to be radically decentralised. It’s not surprising that people oppose housing or industrial investments in their local area, when they will not be accountable for the benefits. The tough decisions are made in Whitehall, leaving with nothing else to do but complain. But this is part of the Treasury orthodoxy too – they don’t want a chaotic decentralisation, with corrupt nobodies taking decisions without the Treasury having ultimate sign-off. When the government wanted to distribute funding for its “Levelling Up” agenda, it didn’t distribute funds for disposal by the city regions and councils, it made these institutions put in bids for the imperious mandarins to pick from. To be fair, government leaders seem a bit embarrassed about this, and say there will be changes in future. But how did they allow this in the first place? And what credibility do their promises to do things differently next time have? The Treasury will undermine any effort they make to reform things. It is now reported that the Treasury is refusing to authorise any capital projects proposed by the Department for Levelling Up. The Treasury isn’t all in the wrong here: the levelling up funding was originally envisioned by former prime minister Boris Johnson as a politically directed slush fund to help win marginal constituencies. The power of the orthodoxy is that it is often right.

So the “economic establishment” would undermine my ideas for reform just as surely as they did Ms Truss’s. It’s a real thing. Any serious attempt at political reform therefore has to take on the orthodoxy and beat it. It can be done. Mrs Thatcher did it, and, to some extent, so did Tony Blair and Gordon Brown for Labour in the early 2000s, especially with their radical expansion of health funding (and it required both of the double-act to do it). It took these leaders years and all their political skill. The remarkable thing about Liz Truss is that she thought she could break the Treasury in an afternoon, based on a mandate she had won from 100,000 or Conservative Party members.

And that is the point. We need political leaders who understand the orthodoxies and how to challenge them – people with political skills high and low. The current government possess few, if any, people of that description. Do Labour? I really don’t know. I haven’t been that impressed with Sir Keir Starmer, their leader, or Rachel Reeves, his Shadow Chancellor. But I could be wrong – they are becoming more effective. One opposition politician I am sure has the necessary heft and skill is the Liberal Democrat leader Ed Davey, having honed those skills as energy minister in the coalition government of 2010-2015. Perhaps he will get another chance.

Sir Keir Starmer: the tortoise of British politics

Picture: Randy Browning, US Fish & Wildlife Service

Uncharismatic politicians are gaining the ascendency. In America Joe Biden bumbles away in public and looks his age, and yet his record of achievement in difficult political conditions is remarkable. In Germany, Chancellor Olaf Sholz is hardly more impressive in public, and yet his awkward three-way coalition government looks solid and is managing stresses that could hardly have been imagined when it was formed. Meanwhile in France the charismatic Emmanuel Macron is not out, but he is down. In Britain the Leader of the Opposition, the dull Sir Keir Starmer, is looking getting stronger by the day.

Sir Keir has caused a lot of frustration among Labour supporters, along with anybody that wants to see the back of the Conservative government. He seems unable to spell out a compelling vision of what Labour stands for; as a speaker he is uninspiring. But Labour’s poll ratings are sky-high, and his own public approval ratings are higher than they have ever been. These ratings may not be decisively better than those for the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, (though one recent put them on that path) but the steady upward trend is what is remarkable. Usually politicians start by sparking high hopes, and then gradually disappointing. Sir Keir is achieving the opposite.

Partly this reflects the chaos stalking the Conservative party, to which Sir Keir’s colourless Labour party presents and appealing contrast. Boris Johnson had bags of charisma, but no grip. Liz Truss lacked charisma but did communicate a clear vision effectively – but people found it detached from reality, and she could not control her parliamentary party. Mr Sunak presents a favourable contrast to these two, but he struggles to reassure voters about the state of his party, and doubts grow.

But Sir Keir’s performance has been more assured of late too. He remains extremely cautious about putting clear policy proposals out into the public domain. Instead he and his team have put out two much vaguer themes in early 2023. These build on the theme developed in 2022 of placing a high priority on environmental sustainability, and the goal of “green growth”. The first of these was developed by Sir Keir himself: when he made an attempt to hijack the Brexit slogan of “Take Back Control” to promote the idea of greater devolution to the nations and regions of the UK. This is cheeky, not least because Britain has little tradition of devolved power, so the slogan is suggesting people take back what they never had in the first place. That is forgivable because the idea is the right one: decisions need to be taken closer to the people affected by them, and people need to have a greater sense of involvement in them. Whether Labour proposals will actually deliver much that is worthwhile is open to doubt. The party has a tradition of being highly centralised, and Sir Keir has batted away more radical ideas like electoral reform. It is hard to think that he will go down the road of a local income tax, for example. I’m unconvinced that anybody in the Westminster ecosystem really “gets” what would be involved in the sort of reform that would make more than a minor difference. Still, the verbiage is better than nothing. It is more worrying, if unsurprising, that Labour spokespeople have not tried developing the theme since Sir Keir flew the kite in the New Year.

The second idea to be developed this year comes from the party’s health spokesman, Wes Streeting. The NHS needs radical reform, he says, not “sticking plaster solutions”. Unlike the “take back control” idea, this one has been regularly repeated by Labour since. The idea seems to be that a reformed NHS can deliver better results without requiring an “open cheque book”, as sir Keir put it. At one level this looks like muddle and nonsense. Currently the NHS is suffering an emergency as it fails to cope with demand, following a decade of under-investment; this demands urgent solutions and not reforms that will take much longer to deliver benefits. The NHS badly needs sticking plaster right now, and lots of it. And radical reform has been tried before, and the results have almost always disappointed – most recently with the coalition government’s attempt in the early 2010s. To make a real difference, some kind of open chequebook will be needed, alongside sensible reforms – including to social care. Meanwhile Mr Streeting is vague about what reforms he has in mind – beyond tearing up the contract for general practitioners (GPs) – which came as a surprise to GPs. Still, politically these words make more sense. Labour does need say something about the NHS, and not just throwing money at it. Perhaps it is the inverse to 2010. Then the Conservatives promised that there would be no radical (“top-down”) reforms to the NHS, and then promptly broke their promise by embarking on a huge reform programme. Labour are probably promising radical reform but planning to deliver sticking plaster with spin.

Tactically this is all very shrewd. My feeling is that Labour will manage to consolidate their advantage over the Conservatives, which still has a certain fragility – polls show few people making a switch between the parties, and many more former Conservatives abstaining or supporting the Reform party of radical Brexiteers. It is the race of the tortoise and the hare. The hare lacks the attention span to win.

But there is a dark side to Sir Keir’s progress. In his campaign to party members to win the leadership, he promised to stay true to the party’s broad policy agenda, developed under his predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn. He has broken this promise. according to Stephen Bush, of the Financial Times and formerly of the New Statesman, this isn’t because he was deliberately misleading. He just didn’t understand the implications of his words, and found that when the time came he was unable to keep his promise. What he said was driven by the political exigencies of the time, without having been properly thought through. This is surely true of his emerging policy agenda now. Britain’s many problems can’t be fixed except with additional public spending, and this must be done when adverse demographics, among other things, mean that there will be little economic growth. Meanwhile Britain runs a substantial current account deficit. To my rather conventional mind, this means that there will have to be higher taxes, and the sort of taxes that will crimp domestic demand – income tax, VAT and National Insurance. Whether or not this is so in theory, Ms Truss has surely shown that it is true in practice – the government needs a degree of confidence from financial markets, which like to see a degree of prudence in public finance. Sir Keir will not say this, but once in power he will surely be faced with the need to raise taxes.

Two other areas worry people about Sir Keir’s caution. One is relations with the European Union. He avoids talking about Brexit, and has set his face against rejoining the Single Market or customs union. With the electorate slowly but surely coming to view Brexit was a serious mistake, surely he has the opportunity to be bolder, while forcing the Tories to defend a sticky wicket? Actually in this case I think Sir Keir’s judgement is sound. Re-integration with the EU brings with it awkward choices, surrendering sovereignty while acquiring little influence. Besides, the EU itself will be sceptical. And though the public may be regretting Brexit, they show little appetite to reopen the debate.

The second issue is electoral reform. Labour members support this, but Sir Keir is ducking and weaving, and is committing to nothing. This is disappointing because it is hard to see the British political system changing for the better without it. British politics has got itself stuck in an awkward groove, which in effect disenfranchises most voters, contributing to a huge sense of frustration. Of course countries with other electoral systems suffer problems too – but Britain’s are deep. Sir Keir’s caution is understandable though. I suspect many Tories think that Labour adopting electoral reform would be a gift to them. It gives them a chance to change the subject from their own record, and to awake the innate conservatism of the British electorate, with all sorts of lurid stories as to what the implications of reform are. Still, I don’t think it would work for them. Maybe Labour can promise electoral reform at a local level, as part of their “take back control” agenda. That would be a worthwhile step.

None of which takes away from Sir Keir Starmer’s relentless rise. It is a striking political achievement that deserves wider recognition.