The problem with Hunt’s ‘back to work’ budget

In January, prime minister Rishi Sunak announced his five key priorities for 2023. Conveniently for him, his first priority was something that is very likely to happen regardless of what his government does. Sunak’s top pledge to ‘halve inflation’ came a few days after just about every new-year economic prediction said that inflation would fall by at least half during 2023. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt adopted a similar hollow ploy in his budget statement yesterday, setting himself up to take credit for something that is already happening anyway.

Alongside all the familiar, disingenuous boasts about promoting growth and business investment, Hunt also placed a distinct emphasis on this being a ‘back to work’ budget. He highlighted the importance of ‘tackling labour shortages that stop [businesses] recruiting… by breaking down barriers that stop people working’. Yet ever since the threat of further pandemic shutdowns lifted last year, people have already been returning to work, pretty much as normal. So why the focus on getting people back to work now?

Read the full article here.

Britain has given up on growth

Many of us will have lost count of the number of ‘growth plans’ announced by the Conservatives over the past decade or so, but one thing is common to them all. They have made no difference whatsoever to Britain’s productivity slump. After 12 years of Conservative economic plans, strategies and frameworks, private-sector productivity is only five per cent higher than it was when the Tories took office. Come rain or shine, pandemic or no pandemic, in the EU or out of it, with low business taxes or high businesses taxes, productivity has barely budged at all.

Despite the failure of all the previous plans to revive productivity growth, probably none was as insubstantial as chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s last week. The absence of policy content was remarkable.

Read the full article here.

Why Trussonomics imploded

As the Conservative Party descends into chaos again following Liz Truss’s resignation, can we draw any lessons from the failure of her plans for the economy? How should we understand the now-abandoned ‘Trussonomics’? And could it have made any real economic difference, if it had been given the chance?

One lesson is that whoever emerges as the next prime minister is unlikely to solve our problems. This is not just a reflection on the individuals involved. Any new leader, regardless of their economic insights and thoughts, is likely to be caught in the stranglehold of Westminster. Over several decades, the political class has absorbed the undemocratic notion that governance is a process of delivery, rather than of leading and persuading people about how things might be changed for the better.

Truss’s government failed to understand that the only audience that it should be accountable to is the electorate, not the fetishised ‘financial markets’, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). Not that Truss or her legion of critics understood this.

The fatal flaw of Truss’s brief administration is that having sensed that a growth plan would be disruptive, Truss and her team failed to lead the UK through those great upheavals. They failed to bring the people with them. This was a dereliction of democratic duty. People aren’t going to put up with ‘disruption’ as an edict from Downing Street. They can’t be expected to just go along with it. They need to understand the reasons for the economic tumult. Ultimately, they need to understand why it is necessary to reorganise and rebuild production anew.

Read the full article here.

Britain’s zombie economy stands exposed

Britain is in the grip of financial turmoil. Over the past week, the pound has crashed and rallied, as has the bond market. Pension funds, at one point, looked to be on the brink of collapse, prompting an emergency intervention from the Bank of England. All this has followed last week’s now globally infamous mini-budget, unveiled by prime minister Liz Truss and chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng. While there is no doubt that this incoherent budget acted as a trigger, it is not the underlying cause of Britain’s woes. It simply brought the UK economy’s underlying fragilities to the fore. There’s more to this market meltdown than Truss and Kwarteng’s hapless ‘mini-budget’.

Read the full article here.

The battle for growth

Written and published before Kwasi Kwarteng’s Chancellor’s statement on 23 September, this article explains the background to the mini-budget and the financial convulsions that followed. It argues that a serious and credible plan for growth can’t be reduced to tax-cutting. It goes on to contend that successive governments have failed to appreciate the scale of the economic task at hand. And that is a cultural failing as much as anything.

This failing has three key elements. First, policymakers are plagued by an intellectual shallowness, which underplays the depth of the economic challenges. Second, they adopt a fatalistic approach to economic developments, which underestimates the capacity of the state to change things. And third, the political class has evaded responsibility, with governments repeatedly recoiling from making the decisions needed to bring about an economic renaissance.

Read the full article here.