October Budget 4 - Good and bad reasons to have fiscal rules, and why bad fiscal rules are worse than having no fiscal rules

 

I was going to write a post about current UK fiscal rules, but judging by comments I get I think I first need to set out why fiscal rules exist in the first place. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about why some countries have them and what they are designed to do. So this blog post is a background piece to a later post that will talk about the specific fiscal rules the UK currently has, and what Rachel Reeves should do about them in the Budget.

Let me start with one reason often given for fiscal rules which is just wrong. This says that government debt as a share of GDP is too high, and we need to bring it down. This is not valid because we have no good reason to believe that current levels of debt are too high. After all, from WWI to WWII UK debt to GDP was much higher, and they are much higher in Japan today. The ‘debt is too high’ argument often implicitly assumes that government debt is a bad thing, and as I explain here that is wrong because it appeals to incorrect analogies with household debt. So any fiscal rule (like the current UK 'falling debt to GDP' rule) that presumes lower debt is good is a bad fiscal rule.

However, is there some level of debt to GDP beyond which bad things might happen? A government that borrows in a currency it can create can never be forced to default by the financial markets. However a very high debt level normally involves paying high levels of debt interest, and to do that a government has to raise taxes or cut spending. At some point the political cost of very high taxes or low spending can be so great that the government chooses to default on those interest payments. A more likely option is that the government creates high levels of inflation to devalue that debt. Both outcomes are pretty bad.

The problem with this upper limit to debt to GDP is that it is very hard to work out what it is, because it depends on political choices. What we can say with certainty is that it is much higher than current levels of debt to GDP. That needs to be the case, because often large increases in debt to GDP are absolutely necessary (think of shocks like wars, or major recessions, or pandemics), so governments would always want the ability to raise debt to GDP substantially without risking going past that upper limit. Of course we have little idea when these shocks will happen and how big they will be, so we have little idea how far we need to be away from any upper limit.

While this gives us no guide to what appropriate levels of debt to GDP are, it should make us nervous about forecasts where, because of the current fiscal policy stance (i.e planned tax and spending decisions), debt to GDP is rising inexorably throughout the forecast period and beyond. Economists call this an unsustainable fiscal stance. An example is the US today, which I will come back to. We can say, with a lot of confidence, that dealing with this is something that will have to be solved at some point to ensure sustainability. But is there any reason to believe that it will be better from society’s point of view, or politically easier, to solve it later than solve it now? [1] If not, why not achieve sustainability now?

If sustainability is the goal, this suggests fiscal rules should focus on some measure of the governments deficit, rather than the stock of debt. In addition it is the path of the deficit in the longer term that matters, rather than temporary movements due to economic shocks, or changes to public investment, or temporary changes in spending or taxes. Any fiscal rule that mistakes temporary deficits for a permanently unsustainable path is likely to create bad outcomes. 

 

Why do governments sometims choose to put sustainability at risk? Here we get to the heart of why we have fiscal rules. It is because increasing debt (or bank reserves i.e. creating money) is normally a lot less unpopular than raising taxes or cutting public spending. Generally speaking, voters worry much more about higher taxes or worse public services today than the very uncertain prospect of a future government default. For this reason, politicians who want votes will often be tempted to cut taxes or raise spending by increasing the government’s deficit.

This explains one rather odd feature of fiscal rules. They are commitments governments make themselves to constrain their current and future actions. Why would a government do this if they didn’t have to? The reason is that they know they will face future temptation, particularly as an election draws near, to cut taxes or raise spending (or both) for no other reason than to win votes, and pay for this by increasing the budget deficit. Fiscal rules are their commitment device to stop that happening.

Think of Trump’s tax cuts, for example. Funding these by issuing debt was more popular than cutting spending or raising other taxes, which is why Trump and other Republican politicians did it this way. But by creating a deficit which, at some point, another government might feel they should reduce, Trump was buying popularity at a future government’s expense. It wasn’t a very responsible thing to do, and a system which encourages irresponsible governments isn’t a good system.

Of course that argument is harder to make if we are talking about saving lives by having more doctors rather than cutting taxes paid by the rich. But if the argument for having more doctors is strong, why not ‘pay for them’ with higher taxes rather than a larger deficit? Suggesting that the spending will not happen without deficit finance either suggests that it shouldn’t happen in a democracy, or that we have politicians who are out of touch with what voters want. In reality I think the UK experience suggests balanced budget increases in public spending can be pretty popular.

If you find worrying about unsustainable deficits that might lead at some future date to high inflation or government default too abstract, then there is a more immediate argument for fiscal rules that I set out here. It uses the same idea about governments being tempted to deficit finance to get votes, but the cost is not default at some date in the distant future but higher inflation very shortly. If we start from a position where inflation is stable, then tax cuts or spending increases will lead to inflationary pressure and therefore to central banks raising interest rates.

Why will governments be tempted to do this? Because moderately higher interest rates are often not connected by many voters to tax cuts or spending increases. Central banks rarely say we increased interest rates because of the government’s fiscal actions, which allows governments to deflect blame. Low information voters may therefore credit the government for lower taxes (say) and not punish them for higher interest rates. Again this suggests fiscal rules based on the deficit rather than debt.

It’s a trick that doesn’t always work for governments, as the Truss fiscal event showed. However we know this trick often did work, because of what economists call deficit bias. Government debt in the OECD almost doubled between the mid-70s and mid-90s, for no good macroeconomic reason. Unlike the last two decades, there were no record recessions or pandemics that could explain this increase in debt.

Of course there are some circumstances where deficit finance is appropriate. Public investment that benefits future generations is an example (with the added benefit that this will boost future GDP) or spending in a recession which is essential for Keynesian reasons (where interest rates are unusually low). Often it is responsible to deficit finance and irresponsible not to, which is why fiscal rules have to be more sophisticated than simply always balancing the budget. Anyone in the media who thinks this complexity just represents loopholes for the government shouldn't be commenting on fiscal rules.

Note that, for the UK’s fiscal rules at least, there is a symmetry between spending increases and tax cuts. In that sense, these rules are neutral in terms of the size of the state. In my view that is an important attribute for a good fiscal rule to have.

So fiscal rules are a commitment device for a government that knows it will be tempted to deficit finance to gain votes, which will either add to inflationary pressure in the short term or threaten an unsustainable path for debt in the long term. They will be tempted because a significant proportion of voters don’t see those costs, or do not connect them to the government which uses deficit finance for party political ends.

I started by noting one incorrect reason often given for fiscal rules, which amounted to a presumption that government debt was too high. Let me discuss two other reasons, one of which is simply incorrect and one of which is much more complex than normally suggested.

There is a widespread but incorrect view that fiscal rules are there to reassure financial markets. This motive is hardly ever mentioned in the academic literature on fiscal rules, for a very obvious reason. Fiscal rules are there because governments can exploit low information voters, or voters that are not worried about debt sustainability. By contrast financial markets involve high information actors. They don’t need fiscal rules, or ratings agencies for the major countries for that matter, to tell them about the implications of fiscal decisions.

A second reason often given for fiscal rules is that increasing government debt represents a burden on future generations. I wrote extensively about this a decade ago (see here, for example). This claim is neither unambiguously true or false. One of the odd features of a government living forever is that it can make the current generation better off without penalising any future generation, but only if certain conditions hold and they may not hold.

Getting the reason for fiscal rules right tells us about their importance. Of the many problems in this world, moderately higher interest rates or the cost on future governments of restoring sustainability are not top of the list. This is important when trade-offs between following rules and other issues arise.

The most obvious example is climate change. If action to reduce climate change is prevented by fiscal rules, then the government (or courts) involved have got their priorities very wrong (I would say criminally wrong). Indeed, as fiscal policy designed to promote green energy will only be needed to quickly phase out energy that creates CO2, it will not be permanent and will therefore not threaten sustainabiitty (see also here).

This is also why I often say that a bad fiscal rule is worse than no fiscal rule. A bad fiscal rule could prevent a government enacting fiscal stimulus in a recession, for example. That has consequences that are far worse than allowing the irresponsible behaviour outlined above. A government that failed to enact fiscal stimulus in a recession would be far more irresponsible than one that broke a bad fiscal rule that stopped it from doing so.

The same issue arises in the United States. The US has some really dumb fiscal rules, like the debt ceiling, which are worse than useless and should be thrown away. But equally, the US doesn’t have an overriding deficit type rule like the one we have in the UK, for example. In addition, the US is currently running deficits that do not look sustainable. Would it be a good idea for the US government to impose a sensible fiscal rule that avoided this?

Until recently the US was a good example of where a good fiscal rule would have been helpful. Typically the Republicans gained votes by cutting taxes and running up deficits and the Democrats worried about deficits, tried to bring them down and probably became unpopular as a result. A fiscal rule that stopped the former would have produced better outcomes.

However right now the Republicans under Trump look like they have given up on democracy, and as a result it is essential that they are kept out of power as far as possible within the constraints of a democracy. If the Democrats were forced to follow a fiscal rule that meant higher taxes or less spending, this might harm their electoral chances (see above), and that could end democracy in the US. It is also quite clear that if the Democrats introduced a deficit rule, if the Republicans gained power they would rip it up in order to cut taxes for the better off.

One final point is the mirror image of the last. Many of those who oppose fiscal rules cite 2010 austerity. But the world-wide move to austerity in 2010 had very little to do with fiscal rules, and much more to do with political actors who wanted to shrink the state. That is obvious in the US, where there was no deficit-based fiscal rule, but it was also true in the UK. Labour rightly abandoned its fiscal rule of 10 years standing to enact fiscal expansion in 2009, and the Conservatives chose a rule that enabled them to enact austerity. To suggest that their fiscal rule caused austerity gets cause and effect wrong. Indeed, a sensible fiscal rule like the conditional golden rule proposed by Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell in 2016 might have exposed austerity for the stupidity it was if it had been in effect under the previous Labour government. [2]

Understanding the case for fiscal rules is crucial for any sensible analysis of them. Often criticism of these rules presumes a responsible government, or highly informed voters, assumptions that if they were true would indeed make such rules pointless. Equally often, misunderstanding what these rules are designed to avoid can lead politicians or others to propose or insist on following harmful fiscal rules, with far worse outcomes than if we had no fiscal rules at all.  

[1] In contrast to the US, in the OBR’s 50 year projections for the UK, debt to GDP only increases above current levels around 2040. That is a good reason why political action, although not thought, can be delayed.

[2] The Eurozone is more complex, because what led to the Eurozone crisis spreading beyond Greece was the actions of the central bank. But otherwise I think the points made in relation to the UK also apply there. In particular German politicians and many voters have a phobia about government debt, which leads to the imposition of damaging fiscal rules.

October Budget 3: In presenting a macroeconomic fiscal stance, Rachel Reeves and Labour need to talk about improving public services rather than book balancing

 

Most of this series will be about the economics behind the budget. So far we have had why tax increases rather than economic growth is how to end austerity. Later posts will look at fiscal rules, public investment and what tax rises are possible within the Chancellor’s commitments. This post is more political. It looks at the extent to which Labour can blame tax rises and continuing poor public services on the last government, and how Reeves needs to frame her forthcoming budget.

As is well known, the 2010 Coalition government did a highly effective job in placing the blame for its own spending cuts on the previous Labour government. As a consequence, and incredibly, more voters blamed Labour than the Coalition government for spending cuts. It was incredible given the macroeconomic reality was very different (see here and initial link to my article). Given the reality of the terrible economic record of the 2010-24 Conservative government, it is quite understandable that the current Labour government wants to place the blame for its unpopular decisions on the last government where it can.

A lot of the criticism of this attempt by Labour is based on vibes. It makes Labour seem gloomy, it is argued, whereas what people want is hope and optimism (usually adding references to the Harris campaign in the US). I prefer to think about the different contexts of 2010 and 2024. In 2010 voters were still recovering from the major shock of the Global Financial Crisis, and were seeing the start of the Eurozone crisis, after a previous decade of what looks by today’s standard pretty good times. In contrast, the whole 2010-24 period has been pretty gloomy in terms of real wage growth and public services.

In 2010 there was therefore a single bad economic event that everyone experienced, and it was natural (though wrong) for ‘low information’ voters to blame that on the government in power at the time it happened. With the Eurozone crisis constantly in the news, and seeing it generally portrayed (wrongly in most cases) as a crisis caused by fiscally profligate governments, it was easy for the Coalition government to argue that it too was having to deal with a fiscal crisis caused by the previous profligate government, and easy to suggest it needed austerity to avoid a market crisis like that happening in the Eurozone. As I have noted so many times, most of the media were happy to promote or go along with this narrative.

The clearest example of this Labour government trying to do something similar was Rachel Reeves statement on 29th July, where she talked about how the fiscal situation she inherited is even worse than the OBR had thought, and outlined the cuts she was making as a result. What evidence we have suggests she failed to transfer the blame for this on to the previous government (source and details).

Since the election Labour support has fallen and Conservative support has risen in the polls, such that the Conservatives are just 4% behind in a recent poll. While it must be true that a lot of this is due to the unpopularity of ending the pensioner winter fuel payment [1], this is also a continuation of a trend that began well before the General Election, a point I will come back to later.

So why is Labour not succeeding in transferring blame to the last government when much of that transfer of blame is justified, while in 2010 the Coalition government succeeded in doing so when it wasn’t justified? There is an obvious caveat and also a partial explanation. The caveat is that it is too early to tell. The Coalition’s ‘it is all Labour’s fault’ was a theme pursued relentlessly for years. The partial explanation is that much more of the media will resist that transfer of blame today compared to the period from 2010. It is also possible to argue, as I suggested here, that this transfer of blame might have worked if Reeves had simply reversed recent Conservative tax cuts rather than hitting pensioners, because then the association with past actions would have been clearer.

However I think there is another explanation, which has an important political lesson for the October budget. Even before 2010, the Conservative party managed to convince many voters (again erroneously) that reducing the government budget deficit was the economic problem, and they had considerable support in that from the Labour Chancellor as well as the media. The Eurozone crisis, and the global turn to austerity in 2010, appeared to back them up. So cutting the deficit was what the Coalition were elected to do.

In contrast, this Labour government was not elected to reduce a huge budget deficit. It was elected, in large part, to fix the NHS and other public services. A 'senior Labour source' said recently that Labour were elected 'first and foremost to sort the public finances'. This is nonsense. The election campaign was not about the public finances, as it was in 2010. What the public were concerned about was the NHS. As a result, justifying cuts to fill ‘black holes’ rather than to improve public services was never going to be popular, because that is what the Conservative government did repeatedly and voters wanted a change.

In this respect it is important to ignore what much of the media writes or says. Journalists are obsessed by what they call black holes in the public finances. The term black hole is mediamacro for a gap between a forecast for the government’s deficit and what the government’s chosen fiscal rule says that number should be. [2] This black hole is the slender reed on which to write speculation about what a future budget may contain in the way of tax or spending changes.

Understandably, people tend to care much more about tax increases or spending cuts than black holes. Journalists know this, which is why the ridiculous term black hole is used in the first place. It is designed to transform what is in reality a highly uncertain forecast about budget arithmetic related to something largely artificial into a number that readers should regard as very important and potentially even dangerous. Of course it is neither very important nor dangerous.

Such tricks might get an article read but it doesn’t stop most people thinking poorly of a politician that cuts spending or raises taxes just to fill a black hole, unless there is a general consensus that this black hole threatens a crisis. What the Conservatives did from 2010 onwards, with the help of Labour, the media and the Eurozone crisis, was create that consensus. The consensus today (if you exclude the Conservatives) is that public services need fixing, and not that we are facing a fiscal funding crisis. Attempts by Labour’s Leader of the House to suggest that the financial markets would have reacted badly if Labour had not immediately filled part of the black hole they discovered were met with general and justified derision. Suggestions that cuts were required immediately to fill an unexpectedly high in year deficit are also economic nonsense.

The script for the Budget at the end of October is already being written by the media. Rachel Reeves will increase taxes to fill the part of the black hole she failed to fill in her recent statement. It would be a big mistake if the Chancellor followed this script. As one of the main thing most voters want to see from Labour is an improvement in public services, it would be much better to justify tax rises as enabling additional public spending rather than filling black holes.

What economists call balanced budget increases in public spending, higher spending matched by tax increases, are likely to be popular among most voters when public services are under stress, particularly if those tax increases mainly hit the better off. The 2017 election campaign clearly shows this, and public service provision has deteriorated significantly since then. In contrast, Labour lost votes during the last campaign, in part I suspect because they kept to what Marc Thomas calls their small target strategy, when many voters were looking for something more substantive. They are still looking.

Taxes are bound to rise in October’s budget, and the Conservative opposition will say I told you so. The way to respond to that is not to talk about black holes that Labour inherited, but talk about the woeful state of public services Labour inherited, how Labour are beginning the long process to restore those services, and that this process requires those with broader shoulders to contribute more to enable that to happen. That is what Labour governments are elected to do, and they are popular when they do it.

[1] Why was cutting the winter fuel allowance so unpopular? After all, it is absurd to give wealthy pensioners hundreds of pounds every winter for something they can easily afford. Some of this is just the power of this voting group. But a real problem I suspect is that there is a large group of pensioners whose income is above the level at which they can obtain pension credit, but below a level where it is easy to save in summer months to prepare for higher winter fuel bills, particularly after recent increases in food prices. The UK state pension is low compared to most other countries. I cannot see any reason why the allowance shouldn't be taxed. 

[2] Which in turn is based on a forecast for GDP, as fiscal rules tend to have GDP in the denominator.

October Budget 2: How much do UK taxes need to rise to end public spending austerity?

 

Austerity is a term used in many different ways, but this post will involve numbers, so I need to be precise about what I mean by ending austerity. I want a measure to capture how the provision of public services (including welfare provision) is significantly poorer than people might expect given general levels of prosperity. Note that this definition makes austerity about the level of public services, and not their rate of change. Many people use austerity as shorthand for cuts to public spending, and particularly the period from 2010, but it makes more sense here to treat austerity as reflecting the level of public services relative to some norm defined by general levels of prosperity.

We know we are currently living in a period of public sector austerity by looking at sector specific indicators: hospital waiting times are unusually high, court cases are being delayed for months or years, and so on. (For a detailed analysis covering four key sectors, see this Institute for Government report.) However it is much more difficult to know how much extra spending is required to get all those indicators back to more normal levels.

Some of the spending required to restore public services may be in the form of a one-off increase in public investment, to make up for a lack of investment over the past 14 years. As John Burn-Murdoch showed here for example, investment in the NHS collapsed after 2010. There are excellent reasons why one-off or ‘catch-up’ increases in spending should be financed by borrowing rather than tax increases, while permanent spending increases should be matched by higher taxation. As a result, my focus in this post is on permanent rather than one-off increases in public spending. I will discuss public investment in a later post after talking about fiscal rules.

The aggregate measure I will focus on is public social spending as a share of GDP [1], as defined by the OECD, which I talked about at length in an earlier post. This mainly includes public spending on health and welfare (including state pensions), but excludes education and defence. [2] According to OECD data, UK public social spending was 23.1% of GDP in 2010. I will use this number as a date specific baseline level of public social spending which clearly cannot be described as austerity. It is date specific because this number needs to be updated over time because of trends in health spending.

UK health spending as a share of GDP roughly doubled from 5% to 10% between 1980 and 2010. The reasons why, in order to provide the same level of services, spending on health as a share of GDP needs to rise over time are well known, and include a steadily ageing population. The share of health spending in GDP has also been rising over time in most other countries. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that to maintain 2010 standards of provision, and ignoring the pandemic, this share of health spending in GDP would have needed to increase to around 12% by 2022. In contrast, actual UK health spending as a share of GDP remained pretty flat between 2010 and 2019 (before the pandemic), but the quality of health services clearly deteriorated over that period, as waiting times data shows.

That would imply that austerity free public social spending would have been around 25% of GDP in 2022. OECD data has actual public social spending at 22.1% of GDP in 2022, suggesting a gap of about 3 percentage points of GDP between levels of public spending and what is required to get back to 2010 standards i.e. to ‘end austerity’. UK GDP in 2022 was £2270 billion, so 3% of GDP in 2022 is about £70 billion. If either the GDP share of education or defence (not included in the OECD’s definition of social spending) also needs to rise, then the spending gap will be above 3% of GDP..

Unfortunately the UK’s current position is even worse than this, because the forward plan the current Chancellor has inherited involves austerity getting worse, not better. As was widely discussed during the election (and which was first noted in this blog back in March 2023) the previous Chancellor pencilled in additional cuts to spending over the next five years, to make his tax cuts look affordable. Total current public spending as a share of GDP is set to fall from 44% in 2024/5 to 42.5% in 2028/9. That could mean that 1.5% of GDP of social spending needs to be added to the 3% noted above to end austerity in five years time, giving us 4.5% of GDP’s worth of additional public spending (over £100 billion) required to end austerity.

Perhaps this number can be reduced because Labour can find some areas of wasteful public spending that the previous government was reluctant to cut for ideological reasons. Perhaps additional investment in the public sector, and even public sector pay increases, can improve public sector productivity. But a strong argument can also be made for increasing the share of GDP going to education and defence, which would raise this number. Finally these are, off course, ballpark numbers designed only to give a rough idea of magnitudes required.  

Higher public spending that is temporary, even if temporary means a decade or two in duration, can and generally should be paid for by higher borrowing. However the additional public spending required to end austerity is permanent, and that means it needs to be matched by higher taxes. That in turn implies taxes as a share of GDP need to rise as a share of GDP by a similar amount to public spending [3]

The OBR in their last forecast estimated that taxes as a share of GDP (national accounts definition) will be 37% in the financial year 2028/9. We are frequently told that this share is at record levels, but it is almost never said why this has to be so. As I explained here the trend rise in health spending is bound to mean the share of taxes in GDP keeps rising, because since the end of the ‘peace dividend’ there is no offsetting major area of public spending where spending is steadily declining. We should therefore ignore past UK history as an indicator of what taxes should be. If the Chancellor keeps the current falling debt to GDP rule (see a later post on the fiscal rules on why she shouldn’t) then under the last OBR forecast to get public spending up by 4.5% of GDP would require total taxes to rise to become 41.5% of GDP by 2028/29.

If that seems incredibly high, it is still below the level of taxes as a share of GDP in France, Austria, Finland, Belgium, Italy and Denmark in 2022, and it is likely that a few other European countries will be above 41.5% by 2027. Comparisons with the US, and therefore the whole of the OECD, are meaningless because US taxes don’t pay for universal healthcare.

Of course Reeves is not going to raise taxes on that scale in one budget. However, ending public sector austerity should be a realistic target for Labour to aim for over a ten year period. Labour’s mission on health should involve getting back to how Labour left the health service when it was last in office. If they want ten years in office it makes political sense to raise taxes and spending sooner rather than later. The problem the Chancellor has is that an increase in taxes of the order of magnitude required to end austerity is very hard to achieve while keeping her commitment not to raise income taxes, employees NIC or VAT.

I will look in more detail at what taxes Reeves could raise in a future post. The next post in this series will be about whether some of those tax increases can be avoided by adopting better fiscal rules, on why changing the current rules would be sensible anyway, and how that process should start in October.

[1] The reason I divide public spending by GDP was explained in my first post on the October Budget.

[2] Defining permanent, non-austerity levels of spending in both education and defence is more difficult because the former is influenced by demographic swings, and the latter by medium term but hopefully not long term threats.

[3] Matching tax increases to current and permanent spending increases makes sense over the medium term when output is at a level that ensures inflation is constant, so that what is added to aggregate demand in terms of higher public spending is taken out by higher taxes.

Transforming the politics of immigration

 

Much public discussion about immigration, including much of the print and broadcast media, negates rather than promotes understanding. The most obvious example is that polling companies still ask voters whether they think immigration is too high, and those in the media treat the results of those polls as indicative of what voters really think. As a result, much media discussion about immigration views it as a problem, and the solution involves reducing the number of immigrants coming to the UK.

Why do I think that negates understanding? In my view it is like asking voters whether they think taxes are too high, and then framing all public discussion of taxation around how to get taxes down. With taxes we know (now at least) better than that. The right question to ask is whether people want lower taxes and lower public spending, because the two go together. If I do a google search for polls about whether taxes are too high, most results present voters with that tax/public spending trade-off. The opposite is also true. Asking politicians how they would pay for additional public spending has become ubiquitous (although less so for Conservative politicians who want to cut taxes).

If we exclude asylum seekers, students and dependents, then most immigration today involves people coming to the UK to do specific jobs. Making it more difficult for firms to employ immigrants would have consequences, just like reducing taxes has consequences. This is why, when voters are asked about skilled immigrants, they have substantially more favourable views than for immigration in general. Furthermore, although voters want less rather than more low skilled immigration, when specific occupations are mentioned that antagonism is substantially reduced. As Stephen Bush noted recently, there is public dismay at the recent drop in immigrants into the health and social care sector.

Of course one reason we don’t have more joined up discussion of immigration is that large sections of the media and the political class don’t want us to. It suits a Conservative opposition to pretend that immigration is always too high, and to blame the government for this. In fact it’s worse than this. The whole Conservative political project today relies on talking up the ‘problem of immigration’, and their media arm is more than happy to oblige by talking about ‘waves’ and ‘invasions’ in much the same way as it did last time the Tories were in opposition.

When Labour was in opposition it felt obliged to nod along to most of this, and only raise their hand to object at some of the most egregious policies, like the Rwanda scheme. After all, they knew that if immigration was a problem the voters would see the government rather than the opposition as responsible. Now Labour are in government the situation is very different, but so far the rhetoric coming from Labour has not noticeably changed. In this respect it appears to be following a similar path to the later Blair and Brown governments.

In a powerful piece, Nesrine Malik suggests this is both regrettable and inevitable. She writes

“What [Keir Starmer] should say is that immigration is not “out of control”. That we do, in fact, have control of our borders, and that the vast majority who come to the country are allowed in after meeting an extremely high visa threshold. That we do in fact, invite many of them in, to fill gaps in our health and care sectors, and that those who come as students, or to work in the private sector, pay hefty residence permit fees and pay twice for the NHS, in taxes and in NHS surcharge.

[Keir Starmer] will not say this, because the illusion that immigration is something that a government can fully “control”, that is not subject to economic dynamics and the needs of public infrastructure, is important to maintain. Shattering this illusion makes it difficult for a government to present itself as having a “solution” to the problem of a country that, as Starmer previously said, needs to be “weaned” off immigration.”

While I’m convinced that such an approach is regrettable (who wants public discussion based on falsehoods), I am far from convinced that keeping it so is in Labour’s interests. While the government may benefit in the short term from falling immigration numbers, there will come a point when that trend is reversed, and the Conservative media machine will make sure everyone knows about it. When that happens, a Labour government is no more likely than the last Conservative government to implement measures that will significantly control numbers, because of the economic damage that will do. In that situation, keeping the debate at the primitive ‘immigration is a problem’ level will hurt Labour a lot.

According to some reports, those around Starmer believe that if they can show the government can work to improve people’s lives, and restore faith in government, this will lessen the attraction to voters of right wing populist attacks on immigration. This is a reasonable point. As I have noted before, austerity is associated with an increase in votes for right wing populist parties, because socially conservative voters are very susceptible to claims that poor services are due to increased use by ‘outsiders’.

However there are two reasons why the immigration issue will not go away under a Labour government. First, it seems highly likely that it will take some time for Labour to return public services to acceptable levels (‘to end austerity’). Second, the experience of the last Labour government suggests the political right can still use immigration as a powerful weapon even in economic good times.

Having a more sensible debate is not inconsistent with ‘weaning the UK’ off immigration, if this means ending the situation where pay in certain sectors is so poor that immigration is necessary to fill vacancies. However many of those sectors are in the public sector or depend on public sector finance, so once again changing that situation is likely to take considerable time, which leaves Labour vulnerable to right wing attacks on immigration when numbers stop falling. It is also obvious that a Labour government should end cases where immigration is used by unscrupulous employers as a means to exploit their workforce.

So it seems clear to me that it is not in Labour’s interests to keep the debate on immigration at its current primitive level, where immigration is always seen as a problem and trade-offs are ignored. As in other areas, Labour’s approach to this issue in opposition (what Mark Thomas calls a ‘small target strategy’) will not work when it is in government. This isn’t a call for Labour politicians to be ‘braver’ in talking about immigration. It is instead an argument that making the debate better and more informed is in Labour’s own longer interests.

The reason for this is straightforward. As long as the public debate refuses to acknowledge the benefits of immigration, it gives the political right the space to make false claims about why immigration is a problem. They can claim, in particular, that immigrants are responsible for poor public services, whereas the reality is that on average immigration benefits the public finances, and immigrants provide much of the manpower in key public services. When Labour politicians fail to counter these false claims, they leave the impression among many voters that these false claims are true.

As I noted here, pretending to be ‘concerned about immigration’ but not doing anything significant to reduce numbers because of the impact this will have on the economy has played a key role in bringing down three recent Prime Ministers. Attitudes towards immigration have become more favourable since Brexit in part because the benefits immigrants bring have become clearer. It is to Labour’s advantage to build on that, just as it is to the Conservative’s and Reform’s benefit to reverse it.

The time for Labour politicians to start changing the public debate on immigration is when aggregate immigration numbers are falling, which means this is an issue they need to address sooner rather than later. Whether the Labour leadership recognise this is another matter,

October Budget 1: can economic growth end austerity?

 

The October Budget will tell us a great deal about how Rachel Reeves will act as Chancellor during this Labour government. As a result, before the Budget I intend to write a number of posts setting out the main macroeconomic issues as I see it. This first sets the scene, by questioning the idea that improvements in public services will come from better economic growth.

In her 2024 Mais lecture Chancellor Rachel Reeves said that

“it is through growth and only through growth that we can sustainably resource strong public services, raise living standards, and compete internationally.”

During the election, when Labour was pressed on how it would find money to improve public services while at the same time ruling out raising taxes on working people, the fall back position seemed to be that this would come from growth.

At first sight this idea is straightforward, and can be encapsulated in the following sentence. Higher real growth means rising real incomes, and higher income brings in higher taxes at existing tax rates, providing the finance for extra government spending, which allows the employment of more doctors, nurses, teachers and so on. However this simple intuition can be very misleading. To see why, consider the following very similar sentence. With higher inflation, higher nominal growth means rising nominal incomes, and higher income brings in higher taxes at existing tax rates, providing the finance for extra government spending, which allows the employment of more doctors, nurses, teachers and so on. The only change I have made to the original sentence is to replace the word ‘real’ with ‘nominal’, but the idea that inflation helps fund additional public sector jobs sounds wrong.

It is wrong, if by inflation we mean price and wage increases across the board, including wages in the public sector. Higher taxes in nominal terms are mainly going to pay for higher wages in the public sector, and there is little or nothing left over to increase public sector employment. But exactly the same point can apply if we are talking about real growth, depending crucially on where that growth is coming from. The most obvious example is real growth due to an increasing working population. More people earning incomes will raise total tax revenue, and those additional taxes can pay for more doctors, nurses, teachers etc, but the number of doctors, nurses or teachers per working person will be much the same.

The more interesting example is where economic growth comes from higher private sector labour productivity. This normally leads to higher private real wages, and therefore higher taxes. But if real wages in the public sector keep pace with those in the private sector, then these higher taxes mainly pay for higher real wages for public sector workers rather than for more doctors, nurses or teachers. [See postscript for a bit more explanation.]

This point is very familiar to economists since the 1960s, when William Baumol argued that rising real wages in jobs that saw productivity growth would lead to higher real wages in service sector jobs, particularly public sector services like health and education, where productivity growth was much harder to achieve. Baumol suggested that this kind of unbalanced growth, with productivity in service sectors lagging behind productivity elsewhere in the economy, was the typical pattern in all economies.

Of course the benefits of real or nominal growth in terms of higher wages may be unequally shared. Public sector workers may have their wages reduced relative to those in the private sector, which will leave some money to be spent on additional public sector workers. That is exactly what the last Conservative government did, except some of that money went on tax cuts rather than higher public sector employment. But Labour have made it clear that for the moment at least that is not a strategy they will follow, for the very sensible reason that it is not sustainable. Reducing the relative pay of public sector workers creates both industrial unrest and staff shortages, which is why Baumol assumed it wouldn’t be the norm.

The only way growth gets you significantly more doctors, nurses and teachers is if labour productivity gains are spread throughout the economy, including the public sector. But the idea that, for given levels of expenditure, better public sector productivity will allow the employment of more doctors, nurses and teachers is both simple and obvious. If that is what people mean by growth delivering better public services, why not mention public sector productivity directly?

The same reasoning shows why data showing trends in public sector spending can be a very misleading indicator of changes in the quality of public service provision, even when that data is shown in real terms. Higher real spending on education, for example, may reflect a combination of higher real wages for teachers combined with little productivity growth, rather than more teachers being employed.

This is why, whenever I look at trends in public spending over time, I try to look at public spending relative to GDP, and how that measure has changed in the past. That controls for inflation, but it also controls for real growth that is spread across public as well as private sector workers. As a result, public spending relative to GDP gives you a better idea of whether public services are getting better or worse than numbers that only control for inflation.

While public spending relative to GDP is a better measure of the provision of public services than either real or nominal spending levels, it still may give a misleading picture. In education, for example, it is important to look at changes in the total population of pupils. In health, as I have noted many times, factors like an ageing population mean that spending relative to GDP tends to rise over time in almost all OECD countries, so a constant level of health spending relative to GDP (as we saw from 2010 to 2019) is consistent with a deterioration in service provision, leading to increased waiting times for example.

If the idea that growth naturally helps end austerity is misleading, there is a more subtle sense in which it may enable it. To put it at its most simple, it may be politically easier to increase tax rates when real incomes are growing strongly compared to when they are stagnant. In terms of resources, higher taxes moderate the growth in private sector spending relative to increases in productivity, which frees up labour that can then be diverted to providing better public services.

However, using growth in this way to end austerity appears to have been ruled out by the Chancellor with her pledge not to raise taxes on working people. Instead she will have to rely on increasing more minor (in terms of revenue raised) taxes. In my next post on the October Budget I will look at how much taxes have to rise to achieve in any meaningful sense an end to austerity.

Postscript (22/08/24)

Feedback suggests I should have added something to make this clearer. Suppose, for simplicity, that all public spending goes on the wages of public sector workers, and that total taxes = total public spending. Now imagine an X% increase in private sector productivity, which leads to an X% increase in private sector wages. Public sector wages rise by X% to keep relative wages unchanged. For higher growth to pay for additional doctors, nurses or teachers, taxes would have to rise by more than X%. They might do so at the margin because of real fiscal drag, but the great majority of the tax increase will pay for higher public sector wages.   

Racist riots and the Conservative party

 

There is no doubt that the actions of the most senior members of the Conservative party have encouraged the riots by right wing racist thugs that we saw recently in the UK. That encouragement was not some unavoidable consequence of legitimate policy positions, but through actions or words that senior Conservative politicians could have avoided without changing any policies. Yet ironically these riots during a leadership election give the party a unique opportunity to turn a page, and turn their back on Farage type populism. The signs are they will not take that opportunity.

In this post I will give two examples of how the Conservative party encouraged right wing thugs to attack hotels housing asylum seekers or attack Mosques. The first is by calling asylum seekers that come to the UK by small boats from France ‘illegal’. The second is by tolerating, even at the most senior level within the party, Islamophobic language. [1]

The 2021 Nationality and Borders Act, introduced by Priti Patel, criminalised those who arrived in the UK without authorisation, even if they subsequently claimed asylum. From that point on, Conservative politicians almost without exception referred to anyone crossing the Channel in small boats as illegal migrants, and much of the media followed suit. This had no policy purpose. This act, unlike subsequent legislation, didn’t stop the government processing asylum claims, and anyone who successfully claimed asylum was not immediately arrested because they had come here illegally. Most ‘illegal migrants’ who came via small boats claimed asylum, and most of those claims were granted.

So why introduce the term ‘illegal migrant’ for asylum seekers if it made no difference? If you talk about refugees, that immediately brings to mind why people are seeking asylum - war or persecution - which generates among most people sympathy with the refugee. If instead you talk about illegal migrants, that brings to mind criminality rather than sympathy. This is classic populism: create a category of people who are outsiders and do what you can to demonise those outsiders.

Of course this was not the only aspect of how the Conservatives treated asylum seekers that was gratuitously inflammatory. Cutting back on resources to process asylum claims meant a large backlog of people were caught in limbo waiting for government decisions, many of which the government housed in hotels. Those being processed were not allowed to work. This was a gift to those like Farage who could suggest that ‘illegal migrants’ were being gifted free accommodation at the taxpayers expense. More generally Conservative rhetoric encouraged the idea that the UK could be highly selective about the countries from where asylum claims would be considered, which goes against the whole concept of a refugee. Calling them illegal was a rhetorical device to make that seem acceptable.

All this encourages racists to attack the hotels where asylum seekers are staying waiting for their claims to be processed. It doesn’t excuse that behaviour, nothing does, but by denigrating those who should have our (provisional) sympathy it makes it easier for racist thugs to believe that such attacks are justified. Elite rhetoric can easily normalize far-right views and behaviour.

The new Labour government very quickly started using the term ‘irregular’ rather than ‘illegal’ migration for those coming here via small boats. James Cleverly, one of the candidates for leader of the Conservative party, said 

“Changing 'illegal migration' to 'irregular migration' will be seen as an invitation to the people smugglers". 

Another, Robert Jenrick, tweeted “you misspelt illegal”. A third candidate is Pritti Patel, who started the whole thing off.

Islamophobia is a generic problem in the Conservative party. Prime Minister David Cameron had no problem joining an Islamophobic campaign against Sadiq Khan for mayor of London, with remarks he later had to apologise for. In a more recent contest for London mayor, then Conservative MP Lee Anderson had the whip suspended for saying “Islamists” have “got control” of Khan, but many Conservative MPs went on the record to criticise that suspension. The deputy prime minister, Oliver Dowden, declined to say whether Anderson’s comments were Islamophobic.

Baroness Warsi, former co-chairwomen of the Conservative party, has said that the party is using anti-Muslim rhetoric as a campaign tool. Suella Braverman, a former Conservative home secretary, suggested that Islamists are in control of the UK, with sharia law and "the Islamist mob" taking over communities. Former Conservative Prime Minister Johnson wrote about the niqab, a face-covering veil worn by some Muslim women, as resembling "letter boxes" and compared those who wore them to bank robbers. Conservative MP Nusrat Ghani claimed that a party whip told her that she had been sacked from her role as transport minister because her Muslim faith "was making colleagues uncomfortable".

That Islamophobia remains. Returning to the contest to be party leader, here is Robert Jenrick recently saying that anyone publicly shouting ‘God is the Greatest’ in Arabic should be immediately arrested. Imagine the reaction if a candidate from any political party had said that anyone shouting hallelujah should be immediately arrested. If the Conservative party uses anti-Muslim rhetoric as a campaign tool, whether against political opponents or internally, then it has to shoulder some responsibility for rioters who attack mosques.

The fact that over 50% of Conservative party members have a negative attitude to Muslims, and almost half think Islam is a threat to the British way of life, is no excuse for Islamophobic statements from Conservative MPs and ministers. Nor is  political pressure from Nigel Farage and Reform an excuse. As I often note, a former Conservative Prime Minister once sacked a Conservative minister for a racist speech, even though that speech was pretty popular among many voters.

There is therefore a precedent for the Conservatives to draw a line that they do not cross on both racism itself and populist language which encourages violence against minorities. Rather than keeping Farage close and competing for those that vote for Reform by mimicking what Farage does, they could attempt to portray Farage as unacceptably extreme. One way to do this became evident during the election, by highlighting Farage’s links to Russia and his lack of support for Ukraine.

Ironically the recent riots have provided another opportunity. The comments by Farage immediately after the murders in Southport have rightly been condemned. Among Conservative voters at least, these recent events have led to a large decline in Farage’s popularity. There may be no better time for a Conservative leader to draw that line as Edward Heath once did.

Unfortunately for all of us that hasn’t happened yet. At the time of writing the bookies favourite to be the next leader of the Conservative party is Robert Jenrick, who thinks asylum seekers should be called illegal and who thinks anyone saying God is the Greatest in Arabic should be immediately arrested. [2] The reason he is favourite to win may reflect the views of Conservative party members, but those in turn reflect a right wing press that demonises immigrants and Muslims. Other candidates for leader have largely kept quiet in the face of the race riots their party’s rhetoric has encouraged.

The root cause of all this is in my view economic. Few Conservative MPs seem prepared to countenance moving to the left on economic issues, by for example following popular opinion and proposing to raise taxes to get better public services. That traps them into relying on socially conservative policies to win votes, and to give those issues salience among enough voters they end up becoming populists, demonising minorities and encouraging racists.

[1] There are many more examples, such as the deliberate downgrading - without evidence - of the threat of far right extremism. These are all examples of a more general phenomenon, which is the adoption of right wing populism by the Conservative party that I discussed here.

[2] Jenrick has also said he would vote for Trump if he was a US citizen.

If Labour is serious about defeating right wing populism, it needs to reform large parts of the media

 

The new Labour government aims to counter the “snake oil charm of populism”. Right wing populism suggests that minorities or outsiders represent a threat to the national majority, and it thereby encourages and excuses the racism we have seen expressed by gangs of thugs terrorising parts of UK cities over the last week.

For too many in the media, as was evident on election night, right wing populism means the likes of Nigel Farage. But as I emphasised here, right wing populism in the UK is far more widespread. The rhetoric used about immigration and asylum by nearly all Conservative MPs is populist. Brexit happened because of right wing populism. Much of this country’s press could reasonably be described as promoting right wing populism. The kind of violence we have seen over the last week has been for many years formented by the language of mainstream political parties and mainstream media.

Good, competent government that does not deliberately set out to inflame divisions within society is important in reducing the appeal of right wing populism. Governing to ensure economic divisions within society are reduced rather than increased is another. Ensuring that prosperity and public service provision in the country as a whole does not stagnate compared to other countries also helps. Unfortunately, even achieving all of these things does not ensure that right wing populism will not prosper.

This is because right wing populism is increasingly seen by particular monied elites as a means of obtaining political power and financial benefits. This is most transparent in the US, where billionaires seem quite happy to openly support a candidate for President that tried to overturn an election he lost and a political party that appears beholden to that candidate and indifferent to democratic norms. In the US, who has the most money to spend is one determinant of who wins elections. There is some evidence that the same is true in the UK, and funding for UK parties increasingly comes from very wealthy individual donors.

While the very wealthy providing financial backing to right wing populists during elections is clearly a problem, in my view a problem that is just, if not more, serious is the very wealthy trying to influence what information the public receives by their funding of media outlets that support right wing populism. Some wealthy individuals have always done this, of course, but the problem is growing, not shrinking, with Musk's takeover of twittter, the advent of GB news and the descent of the Telegraph from a once reasonably serious right wing paper into something almost unhinged (and which may soon be bought by the owner of GB News). This trend is evident in many advanced democracies.

An essential part of democracy is that voters should be able to receive information (news) that is not slanted to fit a particular political viewpoint. When this doesn’t happen then voters receive propaganda, and all the evidence suggests that propaganda can be very effective at influencing how people think and how they vote. When the propaganda involves right wing populism, it isn’t manufacturing consent but rather manufacturing discontent. Misinformation about immigration and asylum seekers is pervasive among right wing politicians and the media. Islamophobia has become endemic on the political right and its press, and feeds the racism so evident among the gangs creating havoc in our cities.

Media outlets can produce propaganda whether they are owned by the state or by individuals. When those from the political right talk about a ‘free press’, they usually mean freedom from the state, not freedom from the views of an individual media owner. In a democracy the media should provide information free from the direct or indirect control of either the state or individual owners. As we saw with the last government and the BBC, state ownership is no guarantee that a media organisation will not advance right wing populist themes, or pander to the populists.

The UK has already suffered serious harm as a result of media outlets that promote right wing populist ideas. The economic costs of Brexit were well known before the 2016 referendum, but a combination of propaganda from most of the press and a broadcast media that balanced that propaganda against the truth meant that many voters didn’t believe those costs would occur. They now have. This shows us that impartiality is a very weak defence against propaganda. If right wing populists claim that Turkey is about to join the EU, and this is balanced against knowledgeable views that they are not, the populist view is promoted without being negated.

Balancing propaganda with the truth may be better than propaganda alone, but it is a totally insufficient way of dealing with propaganda. As Hanna Arendt may have said:

“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the devout communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction and the distinction between true and false no longer exist”

The moment a truth is presented as merely a claim one side in an argument makes, it delegitimises the concept of truth.

Introducing more media competition in these circumstances doesn’t help, because media outlets rarely just include news. Instead news is often combined with opinion pieces, gossip about celebrities and a whole host of other features that help determine what media outlet any individual consumes. Just as we should not want the information people receive to be determined by the political views of an individual billionaire, we also shouldn’t want them to be determined by which outlet has the best celebrity contacts. Particular social media outlets remain dominant because of network effects.

The only way I can see to stop media outlets producing propaganda is through an effective regulator ensuring that they do not. Unfortunately UK regulators, particularly under the last government, have often proved anything but effective. In some areas direct public sector control is an alternative, but in the case of the media it obviously is not. Effective regulation requires ensuring the independence of the regulators from both those they are regulating (preventing revolving doors) and from politicians.

The reason a media regulator like Ofcom needs to be independent of politicians is obvious. As we saw with Boris Johnson, a right wing populist leader will quickly replace the leaders of a media regulator with those who will follow the populist’s wishes. But this is a generic problem across all regulators. Those who are being regulated can influence the regulator directly, but they can do so indirectly by getting politicians to do that work. I would be interested in ideas about the best way to solve this problem, or for those who say it cannot be solved what the alternative is.

Obviously the kind of media regulator I have in mind goes well beyond what Ofcom currently does. Ofcom’s treatment of GB News has been pathetic. GB News produces propaganda, and should not be allowed a broadcast licence. In my view any print or broadcast media outlet that provides news should be regulated to prevent it producing propaganda. What counts as propaganda and what does not is an important topic with no clear or neat dividing lines, but we are currently so far from where that dividing line is with GB News or some of the right wing press that this discussion at the moment is academic.

For obvious reasons a Conservative government is almost certain not to make media regulation more independent and effective, so the only way this will happen is under a Labour government. Yet Labour politicians, particularly when in opposition or when politically weak, can easily be persuaded by media owners not to pursue measures that might threaten those owners. It seems that this has happened with the second stage of Leveson inquiry. (If you think that inquiry should go ahead, see here.)

Yet if Labour is serious about defeating right wing populism, it cannot let the media landscape become increasingly the plaything of very rich individuals wanting to push a right wing populist agenda. The time to tackle this problem is now, when Labour’s majority is secure and it remains popular in electoral terms. There is no reason to delay, and any delay makes action less likely to happen.