Labour’s strategic error on tax

 

Two things have become clear to many people since Labour came to government. The first is that the party had done less preparation work for becoming the government than Blair/Brown did in 1997. Given what happened in 2019 its focus was understandably on winning the election. There were important exceptions of course, in the areas of worker’s rights and greening the economy for example. But as the Sue Gray episode, ending the pensioners winter fuel allowance and abolishing NHS England show, a lot more preparation for becoming a government could have been done.

The second is that Labour policy in government, like its policy in opposition, is governed by the need to win elections. In opposition that meant, correctly in my view, embracing policies and rhetoric that appealed to social conservatives rather than social liberals, despite most Labour party members being social liberals. Making Brexit work was the obvious example of that. Perhaps because the party hadn’t prepared as much as they should for government, it has meant continuing that socially conservative stance in government.

That is most obvious in the rhetoric Labour uses on issues like immigration, but it also extends to poverty reduction, foreign aid and welfare. The government has not abolished the two-child limit despite it being a major cause of poverty. Cuts to the welfare budget are also popular with a public who believe (incorrectly) that there is widespread fraud and abuse of the system.

Whether Labour are right that this positioning will help win them the next election as it did the last is unclear. In the last election most social liberals voted Labour or voted tactically because they desperately wanted the Conservatives out of office. Many of these voters will not vote Labour in local elections or byelections, because they don’t like some of the policies the Labour government are implementing. This virtually guarantees Labour will have a torrid time at the polls over the next four years. That doesn’t make a recovery before the next election impossible, particularly if the Conservative/Reform split continues, but it makes victory more uncertain. There is a real danger that being the moderate socially conservative party worked a treat when Labour were in opposition, but it may fail just as spectacularly when Labour are in government.

While that is debatable, Labour’s position on tax is in my view much more obviously damaging to its future prospects. Apparently according to some government sources suggesting Labour raise taxes is ‘unserious’, so what follows is why I think that suggestion is itself unserious, and reflects poor strategic political analysis. My argument is an elaboration of a recent letter to the Financial Times signed by a number of economists, including myself.

Labour ruled out raising most (by revenue) taxes when in opposition, because they feared doing otherwise would lose them the election. They have carried over that belief into government. Despite plenty of opportunities to say that the ‘world has changed’ and to row back on these pledges, Labour have so far kept to them. In addition, in the October budget Rachel Reeves was fairly conservative in raising taxes on unearned income, and she has also ruled out a wealth tax.

.

The Conservatives lost the 2024 election, and Labour won, in large part because the country was clearly broken. GDP per head was less than in 2019, and public services were in a critical state. Labour pledged to fix both, and voters will hold them to that pledge. Indeed voters are already doing so, which is why Labour’s electoral honeymoon disappeared so quickly and Reform is doing so well in the polls.

With some justification Labour can argue that it is far too early for voters to judge them on their pledge to get the country working again, but what voters can see and Labour leaders seem in denial about is that the government is not doing nearly enough to get the process of renewal started. On growth, all the last Budget did was end the cuts to public investment the previous government had pencilled in, so public investment will not be an engine of growth. Neither will the planned closer relations with the EU be nearly enough to make a significant difference to growth. Making the planning process for new housing and infrastructure quicker is welcome, but it alone will not get productivity growing again.

On public services, the October budget implied a roughly constant share of spending relative to GDP over five years. As the share of health spending in GDP invariably needs to rise (as it has done in most countries over the last few decades), that means cutting other areas of public spending as a share of GDP over time. Barring miracles, that will not lead to significant improvements in the provision of public services by the time of the next election, and certainly not improvements that voters will notice.

Reform of public services is not an alternative to spending more as a means of renewal. Indeed, successful reform often requires spending more money, while reform done on the cheap can just cause dislocation and a deterioration in service provision.

The UK taxes its citizens far less than comparable countries.

Share of total taxes in GDP in 2022, OECD data

Virtually all our neighbours raise more in taxes than we do. (The only exception is Ireland.) The United States has lower tax, but that is largely because most US citizens pay for health by other means, so comparing our tax rate with the US is illegitimate. [1] Quite simply, if we want as good public services as France, Germany, Spain or Italy, we need to pay more in taxes. This the last Labour government came to understand, but this Labour government seems to have forgotten.

As much of the media is controlled by or made up of people who are relatively wealthy, the argument above is rarely made there. Instead we typically get fed two facts. The first is that taxes in the UK as a share of GDP are close to the OECD average. But the countries with lower taxes than the UK, like the US but also Turkey and Mexico for example, invariably supply much less in public services. The second is that UK taxes are at record high levels. But this is an inevitable consequence of health spending steadily rising as a share of GDP, as it has in most other countries.

I have set out the detailed analysis of why taxes have to rise to get the provision of public services close to the level enjoyed in our European neighbours and that we had at the end of the last Labour government here. It can be summed up with one simple statistic: planned total current public spending in 2029/30 (39.7% of GDP) is slightly below levels recorded in 2022/3 and 2023/4 (40.7% and 39.8% respectively, from OBR data bank). If the government doesn’t think this analysis is serious, perhaps they would like to provide some analysis of their own. I suspect however that the reason the government will not take the argument for higher taxes seriously is far simpler. It is that taxes increased in the last budget, and to increase them any further would be very unpopular, particularly given the cost of living crisis.

There are two fatal flaws in this argument. The first is that much of the tax increase in the last budget were simply reversing the unaffordable tax cuts announced in the last year of the previous government. The second is that crumbling public services are unpopular too, and this government was elected to do something about this. Most voters (unlike much of the media) put improving public services way above cutting taxes as an objective (source), which is why the Conservatives lost so badly.

Another argument used is that it is a mistake to raise taxes during a cost of living crisis. There are two reasons why this argument is wrong. First, there is considerable scope to increase taxes on the well off who are relatively unaffected by higher food and energy prices. There is in my view a strong case for much higher taxes on the very rich and wealthy. Second, for some time earnings have been rising significantly faster than prices, and the need for higher defence spending is a plausible and economically solid reason for breaking earlier tax pledges. Reeves followed Osborne in not raising fuel duty last year, and Stewart Wood calculates that the total cost of freezing fuel duty since 2010 is around £100 billion! As Osborne understood in 2010, higher taxes at the start of a government does not mean electoral disaster at the next election. As an election approaches, of course, it becomes politically harder to raise taxes.

Not raising taxes more in her first budget, and not raising them now, are the major strategic mistakes that Reeves has made. They are far more important than anything involving fiscal rules. [2] These mistakes in turn reflect the absence of any serious analysis of what will be required to allow a noticeable (to voters) improvement in public services before the next election. As a consequence, the best we can probably hope for is that despite this lack of improvement Labour leads the government after the next election, and like the previous Labour government restores the UK’s public services in its second term. Given the critical state of so much of public provision, that delay is both an electoral gamble and very bad for the country.

[1] Partly because of this, the US system for providing health is uniquely inefficient. The only other G7 country that raises slightly less tax than the UK is Canada, and it would be interesting to know why that is.

[2] Although the falling debt to GDP ratio rule is stupid, I suspect it is fears following the Truss debacle and worries about labour shortages that are holding back public investment. Current spending is constrained by the ‘golden rule’, but not wanting to raise taxes is not a good reason to break that rule, and I can see few good reasons to break it right now.

Falling confidence in vaccination illustrates how the media’s obsession with balance and impartiality, and its aversion to regulation, can kill.

 

In the United States it is easy to view falling rates of vaccination for diseases like measles as a simple consequence of a right wing populist Republican party that has become anti-science. However I suspect that may be confusing an effect (the promotion of anti-vax views by members of the Republican party) with a cause, albeit a very important amplifying effect.

My reason for thinking this goes back to the MMR vaccine and autism scare that was begun by a then physician, Andrew Wakefield, who published in 1998 a paper in the Lancet suggesting a link between the former and the latter. Although that paper has since been discredited, it is important that medical science, or indeed any science, remains open to unconventional ideas. Although ideally a paper using dubious methods might be rejected by peer review, in practice that often does not happen. The way science progresses is by allowing such ideas to be expressed, which then generates a scientific debate and if necessary leads to further studies to refute or confirm unconventional ideas or results.

So studies like Wakefield’s are bound to, and should, occur from time to time. What turns the normal operation of a science into an unwarranted panic is the involvement of the media. This has two aspects. The first is that scare stories about health sell newspapers. This is hardly surprising. The problem is that the scarier the story is, which invariably means the more one-sided it is, the more it will be read and talked about. The paper that did most to ensure that people knew about Wakefield’s hypothesis was the Daily Mail, but as Roy Greenslade points out here it was far from alone in producing alarmist coverage.

The second aspect involves the media’s promotion of impartiality or balance over seeking the truth. In the UK readers are aware that even their own newspaper’s reporting may often be exaggerated, alarmist or biased, and often look to the main TV channels for more objective coverage. However the default format for such coverage, particularly but not only if the story has a political aspect, is to present both sides of any argument in an impartial way. With the MMR vaccination, the overwhelming consensus of the medical profession was highly skeptical of Wakefied’s results and advocated continued use of the vaccine pending further research, but that consensus was not conveyed in much of the media’s coverage. We know that from research that was done at the time. About half the people surveyed in this research thought that because both sides of the argument were given equal coverage, then there must be equal evidence and backing for each side. Only a quarter of those surveyed knew what the medical consensus was.

As a result of this particular scare story and its coverage, uptake of the MMR vaccine declined in many countries and cases of measles increased, in some cases ending in deaths. It is too easy to put this all down to Wakefield himself, but whatever his motives it is both right and proper that unconventional ideas and pieces of evidence are debated and examined within any science. Indeed it is dangerous for medical science to self-repress ideas that are awkward for consensus views. The problem, in my view, lies with how these ideas are reported by the media.

When parts of the media have every incentive to exaggerate and scare, and the remaining parts of the media promote impartiality over and above the scientific consensus, then we are in danger of creating a deadly cycle in the uptake of vaccinations. Even if we start with almost complete uptake and a disease that has been largely eliminated as a result, newspapers or social media will occasionally find studies or data that form the basis of scare stories. Those stories will be amplified because they help sell newspapers or generate clicks, and more objective media sources will fail to counteract such stories, and indeed will give them false credence, because they insist on being impartial and ‘balanced’. Faced with the choice of getting a disease which, as a result of almost universal vaccination is both rare and largely harmless, and taking a vaccine which it has been suggested could have serious side effects, many will choose not to be vaccinated. As a result vaccination rates drop, and the disease occurs much more often, sometimes with serious or fatal consequences. When this gets media coverage vaccination rates climb again. We get a deadly cycle in vaccination uptake rather than the ideal of permanently high rates of vaccination.

The Wakefield paper and its coverage in the media produced one of these cycles. The indications are that stories around the Covid vaccine are starting to generate another for vaccination in general, not just in the US (where Republican skepticism about the Covid vaccine led to higher death rates in Republican states) but also in the UK and other European countries. In the US things will get a lot worse as a result of Trump’s victory (for example see here, or here, or here, or here), but it should be noted that Reform’s position in the UK is not much better.

To avoid such cycles in the future, two things need to happen. First, there has to be a media regulator with teeth prepared to sanction media outlets that publish scare stories that fail to give due weight to the scientific consensus and evidence. If media outlets and social media platforms just have an incentive to scare people, some if not all will do so. Second, media organisations that you would hope would behave in a more responsible fashion need to put promotion of the scientific consensus over and above the need to be impartial. Rather than just report both sides they need to explain and promote the scientific consensus. .

Opponents of media regulation love to talk about censorship and state interference, because both terms are emotive. But the regulation I propose involves neither. Media outlets would not be prevented from reporting stories, but only incentivised to not report them in a misleading way designed to unnecessarily scare people into doing things that would do them or others harm. The regulator would not look to the state to assess such things but to science and the scientific community.

Proponents of impartiality say that it embodies a democratic implementation of free speech, and as long as coverage is balanced then consumers of media can make up their own minds as to which side is correct. With issues like the wisdom or otherwise of vaccination, a moment’s thought shows why this idea is absurd. To make a judgement about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines requires detailed, peer reviewed studies, and trained medics to interpret and assess them. A non-expert consumer of a few moments of media comes nowhere near duplicating that process.

I discuss these issues further here. As Trump’s regime illustrates, the loudest proponents of free speech are sometimes those prepared to enact severe penalties on their opponents for saying things they don’t like. More generally free speech proponents like the status quo where money gives you a voice while the majority are rarely heard. But whoever gets a voice, for whatever reason, should use it responsibly. Shouting fire in a crowded space for no good reason is potentially a criminal act in the UK, because it can lead to public disorder and could even be fatal. Reporting health scare stories in a very partial, misleading and alarmist way could and has caused harm and death, and should be regarded in a similar way. The most effective way of providing an incentive not to do this is through regulation.

Once journalists were taught that their job was to get the facts and truth and inform their readers or viewers what that is. With issues like vaccination that is what medical research is all about, so the journalist looking for the truth should reflect the scientific consensus (when one exists). If a significant number of people outside the medical profession don’t know or believe the consensus, a good journalist should both explain why the medical consensus is what it is and why that consensus rejects/refutes alternative views.

Nowadays it seems that journalists are being told to simply report views or opinions about facts and the truth, and to give no judgement about whether some opinions are more valid than others. The most blatant example of that is Vox-Pop reporting. As David Jordan, head of editorial policy at the BBC, put it: “It’s critical to the BBC that we represent all points of view and give them due weight.” For him, it appears that ‘due weight’ reflects the number of people who hold that view.

Under this approach, the media would be giving much more airtime right now to those who were skeptical about using vaccines. Now if that airtime involved listening to their concerns and then explaining why those concerns were misguided, that would be a debatable approach. However in practice impartiality just means giving them airtime to explain and promote their views. While impartiality may be appropriate in contests between political parties, when it comes to matters of fact and science it is not. Indeed such an approach is effectively anti-science, and as the example of vaccination shows it is dangerous and can kill.