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.

Going, going ...

“He's a most notable coward, an infinite and endless liar, an hourly promise-breaker, the owner of no one good quality worthy your lordship's entertainment”

All's Well That Ends Well, Act III, Scene VI

Nothing became his tenure like the leaving of it

Six years ago Boris Johnson made the fateful decision to back Brexit, giving a rocket-propelled surge to his career which eventually led to Downing Street. The rocket has now run out of fuel. His career, having reached its zenith, is plunging back to earth and the blond bombshell who has run roughshod over Britain’s constitutional niceties for three years finally exhausted the patience of his Tory Party supporters. All this was predictable. As I pointed out three years ago when Johnson took up residence in Downing Street, “sometimes you need adults guarding the liquor cabinet. Johnson is akin to the alcoholic who has just been given the keys to a brewery and I fear it will not end well.”

Johnson has now resigned as party leader but plans to remain in place as Prime Minister until a new leader is elected, which could take a couple of months. Given the magnitude of the economic problems Britain – indeed, the world – faces over the coming months, this is not a satisfactory arrangement and there is a large swathe of the party which finds it unacceptable. Contingency plans are required to deal with the prospect of recession and the impact that sky-high energy prices will have on living standards, not to mention the very real prospect that European economies will face serious gas shortages over the winter. The likelihood that the Conservative Party will be absorbed by the contest to choose a fourth leader in six years suggests it will be all too easy for the government to take its eye off the ball.

At least an end to the chaotic Johnson government is in sight. Like Silvio Berlusconi, who dominated Italian political life between 1994 and 2011, Johnson sucked all the air out of the room by being the centre of attention rather than the calm centre of competent government. Indeed, his resignation speech was, in the words of journalist Paul Waugh, “a study in reluctance bordering on petulance.” Unlike Berlusconi, it is difficult to imagine Johnson returning as PM. 

But the extent to which matters will improve once he is gone is an open question. A large proportion of moderate Tory MPs who urged a softer Brexit than Johnson’s government delivered were expelled from the party in 2019 and the current intake reflects a more ideological strand of Conservatism. We should also not forget that many Tory MPs aided and abetted Johnson as he lied his way through three years of “getting Brexit done”, mismanaging a pandemic and straining the very fabric of the United Kingdom. This excellent post by Philip Stephens reminds us that the next Prime Minister has a big job on their hands to restore some of the trust in government that Johnson managed to squander. Nonetheless, a disciplined government which is focused on the job at hand will be a great improvement on the car crash approach adopted by Johnson over the last three years.

A new start

Whoever the next PM is, whether Conservative or even a Labour representative following a snap election, the process of political and economic healing begins on Day One of their term. The first task should be to start repairing relationships with the EU. This may be easier said than done, depending who succeeds Johnson. Whilst some of the likely candidates continue to espouse hardline positions on relations with the EU, the easiest fix would be to call a halt to prospective unilateral changes to the Northern Ireland Protocol. Although a Bill proposing such changes is proceeding through parliament, there is nothing to stop a new administration pulling it from the agenda. At the very least, adopting a more conciliatory approach will make it slightly easier for the UK to achieve any changes it may wish to make.

Taxation is a big issue for many Conservative MPs and many were deeply concerned that former Chancellor Rishi Sunak raised taxes to their highest level since the 1940s. They are consequently desperate to see a return to a “traditional Tory” low tax regime. A responsible Chancellor should resist calls for radical tax cuts. The release yesterday of the OBR’s Fiscal Risks Report made it clear that a “riskier world and ageing population ultimately leave the public finances on an unsustainable path.” Demographics will prove to be a major long-term fiscal headwind as the population ages, whilst a fall in the birth rate and the expectation that Brexit will reduce immigration will combine in the long-term to raise the old-age dependency ratio. In addition, the commitment to net zero will result in lower hydrocarbon taxes (notably fuel duty and vehicle excise duty). Whatever the UK’s current economic ills, and there are many, as Chris Giles put it in his latest FT piece, “cutting taxes will not magically improve the UK’s economic performance. Any politician suggesting otherwise is lying to you."

More thought needed on the future of the political process

The Johnson era – and to some extent the previous May parliament – highlighted the extent to which political arrangements depend on convention rather than codified rules. What the constitutional historian Peter Hennessy called “the good chaps” theory of government is well and truly dead. Whilst not necessarily arguing for a written constitution – just look at the problems that have resulted in the United States – there is a strong case for imposing limits on the power of central government. The passing of the Election Act, for example, has brought the independent Electoral Commission’s strategy and policy under government control which can only be seen as a power grab. Governments must remain open to independent scrutiny.

There is also increasingly a case for reforming the House of Lords. The current system has worked well for hundreds of years but it has increasingly become a place of patronage and the award of a peerage to Evgeny Lebedev is particularly controversial. During Johnson’s term of office, his government elevated 86 members to the peerage accounting for 11% of the total (767). During David Cameron’s six year term, his government created 243 life peers. The case for an elected second chamber has been strengthened by recent research suggesting that political donations are a strong guarantee of a seat in the Lords.

Then there is the vexed question of how MPs should be rewarded – a subject I touched on some time ago. There is a strong case for paying MPs more and banning all outside sources of income in order to eliminate disputes over conflicts of interest that dogged Johnson’s term. The funding of political parties is another issue that perhaps ought to be looked at (but almost certainly won’t be). Many European countries permit systems of public funding and whilst it is fraught with difficulties, if such a system could limit the volume of dark money flowing into British politics, it is an issue that should at least be looked at.

Last word

Over the years I have been consistent in my view that Johnson is unsuited to high office and have pointed out that his tenure has coincided with a deterioration in the quality of governance. Yet despite the relief that Johnson is about to depart, we should be careful what we wish for. I have repeatedly made the point that he is a symptom, rather than the cause, of an erosion of standards in public life. Many prominent Conservatives have noted that the party currently reflects a nationalist, ideological streak that is at odds with the pragmatism for which it was noted. This does not bode well for a restoration of better relationships with the EU. Nor is there any sign that it will take seriously the needs of the economy. But take it seriously they must, for as The Economist noted this week, “Britain is in a dangerous state. The country is poorer than it imagines ... With Mr Johnson’s departure, politics must once more become anchored to reality.”

Six years on

It is hard to believe that it is six long years since the British electorate narrowly voted in favour of leaving the EU. In the interim, many things have changed. The economy has most certainly taken a turn for the worse and although not all of the problems are Brexit-related, there is indisputable evidence that it has imposed significant costs. But for all the economic problems, changes to the political landscape have been even more dramatic. A referendum that was designed to lance the boil of Euroscepticism within the Tory Party and heal divisions within society has had completely the opposite effect: British society is polarised as never before and there are no signs of a healing in prospect as the UK’s reputation for good political governance sinks ever lower.

Assessing the hit to the economy

I recently dug out some analysis I conducted in 2018 based on a model simulation of Brexit costs which suggested that after eight years “real GDP will be 4.5% below the no-Brexit baseline level (falling to 4% after 15 years).” Analysis conducted two years later by the OBR came to the same conclusion. So where do we stand now? In order to provide an answer, I updated the synthetic control analysis I reported a year ago which tracks UK output in terms of  GDP outcomes in a control group of 23 similar countries to assess how the UK might otherwise have been expected to perform. Although we should not place too much emphasis on the exact magnitudes, the analysis indicates that the economy has underperformed. The results, shown in the chart below[1], suggest that as of Q1 2022 UK output was around 3.5% below the control value. Even without allowing for inflation (the figures are measured in 2019 prices) this amounts to around £1.5 billion of “lost” output per week. What was that about saving £350 million per week?

Nowhere is the hit to the economy more evident than in trade which has been impacted by the imposition of barriers to cross border flows. Brexit cheerleaders pointed to the fact that exports to the EU in April rose to a record high. They were less vocal about the fact that imports also reached a record high as the trade gap with the EU continues to widen. In any event, nominal trade flows have been boosted by the recent surge in inflation: latest data suggest that the volume of exports to the EU is still around 10% below previous highs.

However, a true picture of the UK’s economic position is only realised by looking at a comparison with other countries. Here is where it gets interesting. German data (based on my own seasonal adjustment estimates) suggest that merchandise export volumes in April were 9% below the 2019 average versus a decline of 11.7% in the UK. A similar analysis suggests that French goods exports volumes are 16% below 2019 levels. In fact, the UK’s performance relative to world trade trends (measured by the CPB’s World Trade Monitor) is not significantly worse than either France or Germany (chart above). The French and German data may be biased down by a reduction in trade with the UK. In 2014, for example, the UK was Germany’s third largest export market: by last year it had slipped to eighth. We thus need more time to assess whether the UK’s trade figures have suffered permanent Brexit damage. But it has impacted on cross-border activity, with bigger queues at border crossings and a rise in bureaucracy. And the UK has still not signed trade agreements with the US or China. There are no trade positives flowing from the decision to leave the EU.

In the domestic economy it is a different story with the latest reading, for the first quarter of 2022, showing that the volume of business investment is 9.5% below its pre-Brexit referendum levels. Whilst the extent of the decline has been exacerbated by the pandemic, even before 2020 there were signs that corporate investment activity had tailed off (chart above). This is despite the government’s introduction of a ‘super deduction’ in 2021, designed to boost capital spending until 2023. Although the latest Bank of England Decision Maker Panel, based on data through May 2022, indicates that Brexit-related uncertainty has fallen to its lowest level on record with just 1.2% of survey respondents citing it as the biggest source of business uncertainty, it should be interpreted with care. To the extent that Brexit is expected to result in a permanent 4% loss of output, the capital stock is likely to adjust accordingly. Moreover, since uncertainty reflects indecision as to whether projects should go ahead, a decision to abandon capital investment plans will be reflected in a reduction in uncertainty just as much as the decision to go ahead. Scepticism is warranted that investment will bounce back any time soon.

Can’t work, won’t work

Whatever the damage inflicted by Brexit on the economy, its impact on the political landscape has been even more profound. Much of what has happened in the last six years bears repeating as politicians continue to gaslight us as to the process which got us here. The campaign was built on lies (here or here) and it is questionable whether it ever represented the will of the people given that only 37% of eligible voters were in favour of it. The Vote Leave campaign broke funding rules which, according to one legal expert, would have invalidated a legally binding plebiscite (the referendum was merely advisory). Nor was leaving the EU Single Market ever on the ballot paper and Theresa May’s time in office was characterised by efforts to placate the Brexiteers in her party rather than find an agreement that minimised the damage to the UK.

Under Boris Johnson, things have got worse. His government prorogued parliament in 2019 in order to avoid scrutiny of his Brexit Bill and was only prevented from doing so by the courts, and in 2020 the government threatened to break international law. Johnson’s government ripped up Theresa May’s agreement with the EU and replaced it with one which placed a customs border with Ireland (north and south) in the middle of the Irish Sea, despite his promises to the contrary. He fought the 2019 election on the basis that his deal was “oven ready” – so much so, in fact, that even now the government is desperately trying to rewrite the Northern Ireland Protocol, claiming that they signed it under duress.

These are not the bitter ramblings of a disaffected Remoaner. The fallout from the referendum matters profoundly for the conduct of democratic processes. The government called a referendum which allowed voters to directly participate in a democratic decision but gave them no direct say in the terms of departure which is profoundly undemocratic. Worse still, Brexit is the Conservatives’ signature policy and it is failing to deliver on its promises. A defining feature of the current government’s approach to Brexit is persistent victimhood – only this week The Sun reported that “Britain is failing to reap the benefits of Brexit because of the defeatist mindset of ruling elites” citing a report by the Centre for Brexit Policy. Never mind that Brexit has been passed into law, that the government won an 80 seat majority at the last election on the back of its Brexit promise and that its key members were educated at some of the country’s elite institutions – it’s always somebody else’s fault.

This goes to the heart of the problem: Brexit was only ever a campaign – its existence was defined by the journey rather than arrival at the destination. Having got what it wanted, the Conservative government cannot make Brexit work because it involves trade-offs they promised we would never have to make. Partly because it is chasing shadows in trying to implement its Brexit policy, it has taken its eye off the ball on almost everything else. As Samuel Earle wrote in the New York Times, “the truth is that Conservatives gave up on governing long ago – a fact that accounts both for Britain’s current mess and Mr. Johnson’s appeal in the first place.”

There is no appetite to reopen the debates of recent years, which explains why the Labour opposition has avoided talking about the problems caused by Brexit. However it need a realistic plan if it wants to form the next government. Aside from a pledge to “make Brexit work which is, make sure we've got a better deal that works” it is far from clear what the alternatives are.

Brexit was supposed to lead the UK to a new economic nirvana. Instead, as Samuel Earle put it, “each one of [the government’s] proposed solutions, offered in the name of national renewal, has made the situation worse … An economy predicated on low productivity and low investment, buttressed by a self-defeating lack of seriousness about Britain’s condition” is now where we are. Six years ago, economists warned this would happen. What was derided as Project Fear is now reality.

---

[1] It is notable that UK GDP fell by more than most countries during the initial stages of the pandemic but subsequently rebounded much more sharply. One possible explanation for this are differences across countries in the way non-market services are measured in the national accounts. Here for an explanation.