Unpalatable choices

The job of governing is difficult: It is a full-time occupation requiring the total focus of the person in charge to manage a vast range of complex economic and geopolitical issues. It would appear, however, that running the UK is a far less onerous task: After all, the Conservative Party currently has time to look for its fourth leader in six years as the contest to replace Boris Johnson gathers momentum. The lack of quality on offer does not bode well for a resolution to the mounting economic problems facing the UK.

After eight candidates threw their hat into the ring following Johnson’s enforced departure, the number of candidates has been whittled down to two, who are now in the process of trying to convince members of the Conservative Party that they are worthy successors to Johnson. This contest has pitted former Chancellor Rishi Sunak against current Foreign Secretary Liz Truss. Sunak is competent but regarded as untrustworthy by many in the party, due to his own personal dealings and the way he has clearly angled to edge out Johnson without explicitly appearing to do so. Truss is a former Liberal Democrat who supported Remain but who now sounds more Brexity than many of the anti-EU zealots. The debate has not been edifying. After all, both talk about the need for a fresh start despite the fact that they are both members of a party which has governed for 12 years and served as ministers in Johnson’s government. Truss is unashamedly copying Margaret Thatcher in terms of both rhetoric and policy and is now the bookmakers’ odds-on favourite, currently priced at 1-5 whilst Sunak is priced at 3-1 against (win probabilities of 77% and 23% respectively).

Given the magnitude of the economic problems in the months ahead, neither candidate gives the impression that they have much to offer. Truss has argued for tax cuts as a way of boosting economic growth, promising to freeze corporation tax; reverse the 1.25% rise in national insurance contributions and suspend the green energy levy added to energy bills. Sunak has also reluctantly been forced to concede that he would also reduce taxes, having previously accused Truss of promising unfunded tax cuts. One of his promises is to cut VAT on domestic energy bills to zero for 12 months if the price cap – currently just under £2,000 a year for the average home – exceeds £3,000 (as is now likely). Ironically, Sunak had previously ruled out such a move and told the House of Commons in February that “there would be no guarantee that suppliers would pass on the discounts to all customers.”

To the extent that economics plays a role in political thinking these days, the tax cut debate has dominated the debate so far. According to Truss, these tax cuts “are affordable within our current fiscal rules” – rules which envisage reducing the debt ratio and balancing the current budget on a three year horizon. According to the OBR, there is roughly £30bn of fiscal space but this is subject to a huge degree of uncertainty, especially since inflation could raise public sector outlays and eat up a large slice of the headroom. Truss argues that tax cuts which generate growth will pay for themselves. There is no evidence to suggest they will. She has also suggested that lowering taxes will help to curb inflation. It is unclear how this can happen. By putting more money in taxpayers’ pockets, in effect households will have more to spend which, at a time when supply constraints are biting hard, is more likely to raise prices than lower them. Moreover, the BoE would likely respond to a relaxation of the fiscal stance by tightening monetary policy more aggressively than it would otherwise, thus making households’ life worse rather than better.

Reducing taxes also has resource consequences for the public sector. The derisory 2% wage offer to public sector workers at a time when inflation is set to hit double figures implies a significant real wage cut for key workers who two years ago were being lauded for their sacrifices in keeping the economy afloat during lockdown. It will simply not be possible to deliver the levelling up programme, which both candidates aspire to, whilst reducing tax revenues. And as I have pointed out before, shrinking the size of the state at a time when an ageing population will place significant strains on an already overstretched NHS, has major implications for the nature of health provision.

What is striking is that both candidates are focusing on supply side reforms of the kind implemented by the Thatcher government in the 1980s. This is not necessarily the wrong focus – the UK does need supply side reform – but tinkering with taxes is not the right way to go about it. If the government is serious about tax issues, it should look at the recommendations of the Mirrlees Review which argued for root and branch reform. As it is, the economy’s potential annual growth rate has dropped from around 2.5% prior to 2008 to something below 1.5% today (chart above), whilst labour productivity remains weak. Boosting investment is thus vital if there is to be any sustainable pickup in growth. Whilst many of these problems are not unique to the UK – slower potential growth is evident across the industrialised world, partly due to demographic factors – the UK faces the unique problem of Brexit. 

Although the media has this week focused on the queues at Channel crossings, many Conservative politicians – including the leadership candidates – continue to deny that Brexit played any role in this. Still less do they acknowledge the fact that France now treats the UK as a third country precisely because that is what the UK requested. Eliminating, or at least reducing, some of these trade frictions would go a long way towards improving business conditions for export-oriented companies and provide some support to the economy. Anyone denying that Brexit is a problem for the economy is deluded.

At a time when the UK is facing its most severe headwinds since the 1970s it is striking that neither candidate has much to say about the cost of living crisis. Unfortunately, this reflects a lack of ideas on the right of the political spectrum. This is not to say that the centre-left is a fund of ideas either, but a rehashing of old ideas to tackle the social problems which are themselves partly due to austerity and the inequalities resulting from the 1980s tax cuts, demonstrates a lack of joined-up thinking. Truss and Sunak appear to be engaged in the pursuit of power for its own sake rather than bringing forward ideas to make life better for voters. Such intellectual bankruptcy suggests that in the absence of a major turnaround, politicians will continue to ignore the UK’s mounting economic difficulties. It is likely to be a hard winter but the new PM would be wise to recall the 1978-79 Winter of Discontent which banished Labour to the political margins for a generation.