A Social Democratic Future

Policy paths towards equality and efficiency

Starmer

Reviewing Starmer’s Conference speech

by

Keir Starmer’s 2022 Labour Party conference speech sketched out his strategy to occupy the political ground vacated by Trussonomics.

Labour would put working people interests over those of the rich, be the party of opportunity, of aspiration, of fairness, as well as of sound public finances and of economic competence.

Kwasi Kwarteng’s September mini-budget comprising £45bn of tax cuts – the biggest since 1972- with its immediate economically and politically disastrous aftermath provided a helpful backdrop to resonate his message to define the ideological blue water between Labour and Conservative, largely hidden during the May and Johnson administrations.

Trussonomics is essentially Reaganomics (relying on tax cuts on the rich to spur growth) mixed with Modern Monetary Theory – it is basically OK for governments that issue and borrow in their own currency to resort to money-printed deficit funding until an unsustainable inflation inflection point is reached.

In short, it is the Conservative free market equivalent of Corbynism, save that: the rising tax unfunded deficit will be the result of taxes being cut rather than of spending increased; John McDonnell was more wedded to fiscal sustainability and would have unlikely to have introduced discretionary spending unfunded increases to take the deficit to 7.5% of GDP, and if he had, would have prepared the ground better with the financial markets in a more pragmatic fashion;  the aim is to achieve a 2.5% headline growth rate just before a 2024 election – regardless of its sustainability and the ability to fund future health and other core social welfare activity – is more political cynical and single-minded in its pursuit of perceived party over national interest.

It is unlikely that will come to pass even on its own terms. Evidence is lacking that tax cuts concentrated on the top five per cent will lift growth – Reagan’s tax cuts in the 80’s led to a ballooning public deficit that had to be closed later.  It suggests instead that increased inequality retards rather than helps sustainable growth.

Embarking on unfunded borrowing to pay for tax cuts at a time when the public deficit is near to a record high, the balance of payments current deficit is widening, inflation is at a 30 year high, and when sterling was already weak, was asking for trouble. It soon came as the following chart showed.

Fiscal and monetary policy are now actively working against together to such an extreme that the Bank of England had to resort within days to a £65bn purchase of long-dated government bonds (gilts) to stop a calamitous sell off by pension funds facing margin calls due to bond prices collapsing in response to the sudden rise in gilt yields.

Most commentators expect mortgages rates to approach 6% by 2023. Combined with sterling at near parity with the dollar (which increases import costs) living standards on the vast majority will be squeezed that much tighter and first-time buyers thwarted as mortgage costs become unaffordable.  Outcomes that will heavily weigh down on growth making the tax cuts self-defeating in the process.

The political optics of reducing taxes on the already rich at a time when most working households are struggling to juggle their budgets with many without savings facing real hardship was also dire.

Kwarteng thus gave Starmer practically an open goal to shoot at. Shrouding his speech with his family backstory, parental struggle in a pebble-dashed semi, their hard work and aspiration accorded with the approach suggested in Starmer’s Story Must Be Labour’s Story. 

The headline flagship of his speech was 100% clean energy by 2030. Public-private partnerships spearheaded by a new Great British Energy state undertaking established within the first year of a new Labour government would unlock investment in domestic renewable energy sources to create a “million new jobs training for plumbers, engineers, software designers, technicians, builders” as well as insulate 19 million homes.

Complementing the £8bn National Wealth Fund that the shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, had announced the previous day, all this was rather suggestive of a green updating of Harold Wilson’s White Heat of Technological Revolution pre-1964 election banner, creating British jobs on the back of British innovation and investment.

Growth would also be bolstered by targeted capital allowances and borrowing to invest for long-term economic benefit within a wider fiscal framework where the current budget would be balanced: a resurrection of Gordon Brown’s golden rule. Fiscal rules would require debt as a proportion of GDP to reduce, with all policy commitments fully costed and funded, guided by (a previously announced) Office for Value for Money.

To support the customary Labour commitment to safeguard the NHS, more nurses, midwives, and doctors would be trained, funded from the proceeds of a reimposed 45% higher rate; in effect, a sleight of hand, insofar that reversing a cut simply restores to previous position: by the same logic reinstating the national insurance increases and Health and Social Care Levy would create the opportunity for £16bn of spending on new commitments.

70% home ownership would be sought by a policy framework favouring first time buyers (FTB) rather than Buy-to-Let investors and second home purchasers. Foreign purchasers would be charged a higher rate of transaction stamp duty, while a Mortgage Guarantee Scheme would aim to reduce FTB deposit requirements.

Such a commitment without some systemic reform of the current housing system based on private business models dependent on rising house prices, appears to risk becoming a false target akin to the Conservative 300,000 homes one, diverting attention from the substance of strategic policy change although mention was made to “reform planning so speculators can’t stop communities getting shovels in the ground”, which, however, is a slogan rather than a policy.

There were some other specific taxation pledges, namely retaining the reduced 19% basic rate and not reversing the national insurance increase – and relatively unremarked on – abolishing business rates, replaced with an alternative system (undefined) that would provide for early payment of revaluation discounts.

In that light, no indication was given how Boris Johnson’s existing September 2021 social care package – let alone an improved fairer one – would be financed nor was note made of the impact of Kwarteng’s tax cuts on its current progress.

Taxes on workers and employers have deadweight effects on employment, wages, productivity and growth, but given the public finances will be in mess if and when Labour forms a new government, such commitments beg questions as how spending on rising health care and social care needs in an aging society, on further education conducive to growth, on investment in affordable housing and bringing private sector housing up to Decent Homes Standard, is to made compatible with Labour’s proposed fiscal framework.

To square that circle is a long odds gamble on growth and lower interest rates coming to the rescue of the real crisis of the fiscal state: the mismatch between the public expenditure requirements of the UK and the political and electoral willingness for them to be met through forms of taxation that are efficient, sufficient, and transparent.

Honest and deep debate on public funding requirements matched to sources is accordingly avoided, invariably subverted instead to short-term political presentational purposes. The impoverishment of public services and an almost default governmental resort to hidden stealth or inefficient forms of taxation is the inevitable end-result.

In that light, it was disappointing that Starmer’s speech appeared to accept the Conservative take on the that taxes need to reduce, resorting to a New Labour-type tactical triangulation response, such as the linkage of increased spending on doctors and nurses with a reimposed 45% tax rate.

He could have focused instead on the trade-off between investing for growth and tax cuts, highlighting the impact of frozen tax allowances as a prime example of taxation by stealth on the hard-working majority, linking it to the need for system reform across the health and social care, housing and education sectors.

Strategy and tactics need to be rebalanced over the coming year.

Starmer’s Story Must Be Labour’s Story

by

Christened by working class parents to commemorate the Labour founder, Keir Hardie, the young Starmer trod an upward mobile professional journey through grammar school, redbrick university, and Oxbridge into select Bar Chambers. Becoming a doughty legal defender of organised strikers, anti-capitalist campaigners and death row inmates, he then ‘took silk’ as a QC, providing a pathway to his appointment Director of Public Prosecutions in 2008 – an establishment role he excelled in, exhibiting rationality and competence tinged with radicalism.

Succeeding Frank Dobson – a former Health Secretary but unsuccessful first Labour London Mayoralty candidate – to the inner city, and still largely working class, safe seat of St.Pancras, Starmer quickly but quietly learnt his Westminster ropes. In October 2016, Jeremy Corbyn appointed him Shadow Brexit Secretary – an appointment based not on political affinity, but on a recognition that his skill profile best matched the requirements of the post, surmounting concerns within Corbyn’s inner circle that it would simply provide Starmer with a stage for a continuing audition for the top job.

Which it did. By far the most effective Shadow performer in the Commons, Starmer effectively critiqued the Brexit position of both May and Johnson governments. Elected Labour leader in April 2020 at the height of the first Covid wave, he soon established himself as a measured but effective leader of the opposition, whose gravitas contrasted sharply and favourably with both a Prime Minister almost habitually reliant on bluster and boosterism and with a predecessor invariably out of his depth at the dispatch box.

But doubts began to surface that Labour’s new leader, while brilliant at discharging a brief and in forensically unpicking an opponent’s case, lacked the ability to create and personify a political counter narrative that could resonate within, yet alone beyond, Westminster. It was also noted that his six Brexit tests and espousal of a ‘People’s Vote’ had proved counter-productive in political and economic outcome terms. After a honeymoon period, apart from taking the whip away from Corbyn, his leadership style was characterised by caution and indecision with a proclivity to tack to the prevailing wind of the day in a way that often smacked more of tactical opportunism than strategic vision.

Since 1945 only three Labour leaders, Clement Attlee, Harold Wilson, and Tony Blair have won electoral power at Westminster – all following a long hiatus for Labour in Opposition. The first two did so not by dint of their personalities but rather by their ability to manage and to link a desire for change within the population, the last by a more presidential project that personified ‘New’ Labour’s colonisation of the centreground.

The December 2019 Tory capture of ‘Red Wall’ seats won with an enlarged working-class support base, along with the party’s practical collapse in Scotland, means that to become the fourth, Starmer  – discounting a return of a substantial number of SNP seats in Scotland back to Labour – must secure the largest ever electoral swing that Labour has ever achieved in England of over 12% compared to 10.7% in 1945.

Has Starmer really got what it must take to overcome not only that unprecedented electoral challenge – likely to be compounded by boundary changes favouring the Conservatives – but also concurrently the immense structural social democratic wider political challenge of reconciling necessary fiscal and political responsibility with the accommodation of ever-rising rising demand and need for increased health, social care, and education social expenditure, on top of equitable social security reform – the true underlying fiscal crisis of the state – as well as the secular tendency for education and age rather than social class associational factors to determine voting behaviour, requiring the cultural and the economic to be ever finely balanced in political calculation.

In the short term, policy reviews and prescriptions can wait. Starmer must first build a sustainable value base that can support and illuminate a coherent overarching political strategy chiming with majority concerns covering affordable housing, quality neighbourhood schools, and the building safe and secure communities endowed with well-paid jobs, that some of the more thoughtful members of his Shadow Cabinet, like Rachel Reeves, have begun to build.

Starmer cannot recreate Blair’s presentational elan, but he can mesh such a strategic framework to his personal back story: the son of a disabled mother and toolmaker father who forged a successful career by hard work and application, subsequently marked by public service. He should dare the Mail and Telegraph to sneer at such an epitome of Middle England endeavour and aspiration for honest and in the scheme of things modest material reward.

Starmer as a person and Starmerism as a political project should be joined and projected, linking, by way of contrast, the entitlement and real elitism of the Prime Minister’s back story to his opportunistic and hollow ‘chancer’ policies.

A case in point is the Johnson’s government’s Levelling Up agenda. It relies upon a mix of big ticket and local bus depot-type infrastructural projects with thinly spread centrally determined funding-streams, themselves subject to manipulation for party political advantage.  Starmer must seize as Labour’s own, the emerging overlapping consensus, manifested recently by Bank of England’s chief economist Andy Haldane speaking on behalf of the soon to be defunct Industrial strategy council, that sustained local growth needs to be rooted in local strategies, covering not only infrastructure, but skills, sectors, education and culture, measured by defined understandable transformational outcomes: improved educational attainment and opportunity, the generation of new and well-paying jobs, and the spread and mainstreaming of affordable housing.

He will also need to tap an enlarged fiscal space for government borrowing, evidenced by Biden’s Stimulus and Climate Change Package, taking the opportunity to be both bold and lucky, as Johnson did to combine ‘ getting Brexit done’ with electoral success.  Unlike Johnson, he also must be honest and straight-talking about linking future social benefit and justice to contribution. It is not just about the economy, but also about values and vision. The policies will follow.