Tag Archives: labour-party

Why Starmer won’t Rule Britannia, he didn’t take my advice

About a year ago I gave Kier Starmer some unsolicited advice about how he should improve the British economy. This year it seems Kier will lose his premiership, in part because he ignored me.

Now to be fair, Kier Starmer is still Prime Minister. He isn’t (politically) dead *yet*. But most of the British press is writing his political obituary so I might as well get in on the fun myself.

To be clear: the proximal cause of Starmer’s downfall is not the economy directly. His inability to handle the political issue of immigration (leading to the Reform party winning big at the local elections) alongside his bad judgement in the Mandelson scandal are probably the most notable reasons for his current quagmire.

But I sincerely believe that his inability to grow Britain’s economy is behind both of these issues: if wages were rising then immigration alone would not have let Reform win big. And likewise his recent scandal could have been water under the bridge if he was more popular (which would be easier if wages in Britain were rising).

And I believe the reasons he hasn’t been able to grow Britain’s economy is because he didn’t do any of the things I suggested. He hasn’t reformed Britain’s labor market or property market in any pro-growth ways. In fact most of his signature policies of late seem to be tax rises, stealth tax rises, and reforms that make it *harder* for Britain to grow, not easier.

Even Starmer himself admitted during the 2024 election that the property market needed significant reform. He claimed he would fix Britain’s broken planning system, a system designed to stymie anyone who wants to build anything anywhere, not a great system for a country that needs to build more houses and more power plants since they have the some of the worst housing shortages and energy prices in Europe!

But despite constant promises, constant claims that it would *eventually* be done, Starmer has taken 2 years and the 3rd largest majority in Labour’s history and turned it into *nothing at all* on the planning front. In fact, house-building has *gone down* since Starmer has taken office, and energy costs have *gone up* even faster than the rest of Europe.

Starmer can stand next to all the wind farms in the world, plenty of them will still get built even *with* a broken planning system. But the stark truth is that *way less stuff is getting built in Britain* than was being built under his Tory predecessor. And *way way less stuff is getting built* than would be built if he just *reformed the planning system like he promised*.

He just seems to have no mindset for growth. His other big 2024 promise was to not to raise taxes on working people. So as soon as he came into office he raised taxes on *any business that wanted to employ a working person*, which is a stealth tax on working people even if people don’t “see” it. Just because someone doesn’t see an extra few thousand pounds get taken from their paycheque doesn’t mean the tax is really “free.” Companies notice when it costs an extra few thousand pounds to employ any worker, and they respond by lowering their hiring and freezing raises to recouperate.

OK that’s not *actually* how it works. If we want to get technical (and I guess we should) what ACTUALLY happens is marginal, like this:

  • With every worker costing an extra few thousand pounds to employ (because of Starmer’s new tax), some companies will no longer think they can increase their profits by hiring more workers, the costs are just too high.
  • This isn’t every company mind, it’s only a few, it’s only those on the margin between profit and loss
  • But these few companies will pull out of the hiring market because they just don’t think a new worker is worth the cost. Now there’s *the same number of workers chasing fewer jobs*
  • What happens when the same number of dollars chase fewer goods? Dollars are worth less than they were. What happens when the same number of workers chase fewer jobs? Workers are worth less than before.
  • The same number of workers chasing fewer jobs means companies can suddenly be a lot more picky. They won’t need to raise wages to fill positions, or raise wages to ensure retention, and so they just won’t raise those wages since they don’t have to.
  • The companies aren’t making bank off of this mind, the money they save by not raising wages is the money going straight to Starmer through his stealth tax (which is supposed to not harm working people, mind you).
  • The result is the same: some companies stop hiring, many companies freeze wages, workers are harmed even if they don’t get to see the money coming out of their paycheque and going to the government.

Anyway, Starmer isn’t pro-growth enough. He hasn’t reformed any of the awful red tape that has kept Britain from growing, and he’s even added some of his own plus plenty of new taxes to boot. The results are unsurprising: Britain’s growth has flatlined and the voters aren’t happy with the poor economy. This makes more of them willing to listen to other parties (like Reform) and also primes them to already hate Starmer himself, such that a scandal which a more popular PM could weather (the Mandelson Scandal) has become deadly for Sir Kier.

And besides all that, the Mandelson scandal was entirely of Starmer’s own making, and it is a stupid scandal to boot.

Starmer’s brand was predicated on an end to sleaze: no more dirty deals or giving favours to friends. Starmer wasn’t like that (he said), he was upright and by the book.

But then once Starmer was in office, he took a well-known sleazeball (Peter Mandelson) who is ALSO a known affiliate of Epstein, and hands this man an ambassador position for which he is thoroughly unqualified. Britain’s foreign service is *supposed* to be more professional than America’s, political allies don’t just get handed ambassadorships as a thank you for their service. But Starmer did just that.

Mandelson had never worked in the consulates and embassies before, unlike the ambassador he replaced. And his lack of experience made it completely clear that he only got his position simply because Starmer wanted to reward him, as he was one of the (many) Grandees who had helped Starmer’s rise to power.

The whole saga then descended into a he-said she-said about the fact that a sleazeball like Mandelson *obviously* didn’t pass the rigorous vetting an ambassador needs to pass, but Starmer’s people made it clear that they wanted Mandy so he was appointed to the ambassadorship anyway. Starmer has tried to say *he himself* didn’t do anything wrong, but seriously: even a decade before anyone cared about the Epstein scandal, *Mandelson was already a known and tainted player*. Over 20 years ago I remember a comedian joked “who the hell made Mandelson a *lord*? The Sith?” He’s not a clean figure and he never has been. Even if you personally didn’t write a message saying “ignore the vetting red flags, I want Mandy,” no one could possibly say that they thought Sith Lord Mandelson was a clean and appropriate candidate for ambassador.

Anyway that’s my obituary on Kier Starmer. He never had a plan for growth, and he thought taxes were consequence free if people didn’t see them in a paycheque. He rose to power not by his skill at getting things done, but by his skill at convincing people he was a safe pair of hands. Safe indeed, he’ll never drive the car off a cliff, but only because he’s too scared to turn it on in the first place.

“No more austerity! The Government needs to invest!”

“Government” is capitalized here because we’re talking about the UK today. I meant to write about it earlier, but Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have been announcing that benefits cuts will hit the UK this year. On top of last year’s tax hikes, this has raised the specter of Austerity, and fears of another Lost Decade in the UK, only this time with Labour at the helm.

Critics of the cuts abound, bringing complains and counsel:

“What happened to the tax rises from last year?!?”

“Austerity failed already! We can’t keep cutting!”

“Tax the rich! Don’t cut off the poor!”

And finally: “We should invest, not cut!”

Let me address these one by one. First, as much as the left-of-center despises the Laffer Curve, it is still an accurate reflection of reality. Raising taxes increases prices and reduces demand. This nearly always leads to a tax rise bringing in less money than the government predicts. They may claim to be modelling the demand reduction, but governments that raise taxes are heavily incentivized to make broad claims about bringing in lots of money to balance the books. Accurate modeling plays second fiddle.

And this has been the case in the UK, the 40 billion pound tax rise announced last year isn’t expected to bring in quite that much. For instance, a tax on private school education was expected to raise money while affecting a minimal number of pupils. But the government underestimated how many families would be unable to afford the tax, pushing those kids back into the public schools, where they aren’t paying the tax and the government will have to pay for their education.

So the government’s tax rise didn’t bring in near enough, and they even raised spending on top of it. The UK now faces a yawning deficit, nearly 5% of GDP. With Debt to GDP already over 100%, the government is finding borrowing unaffordable. The cost of financing all that debt is soaring, it’s 25% higher than it was a year ago at more than 100 billion pounds a year. Remember, that 100 billion pounds is *just the cost of the interest payments*, assuming no money is spent actually paying down the debt. Labour is then adding that 5% deficit on top of that, which will need even more borrowing.

So borrowing is going to cost way more than Labour expected. If they don’t want to enter a debt spiral, they need to manage that deficit.

“But Austerity failed already!” When did the UK ever implement austerity? It was the word of the decade under the coalition government, but despite the tough talk and tax rises, total spending increased every single year of the coalition, and never went down. And this wasn’t “cuts in real terms either,” *real spending* ie inflation adjusted spending, never went down during the Coalition government. It grew more slowly than under Blair/Brown, but it never went down. Boris Johnson has the (dis)honor of overseeing the only year on year reduction in real Government expenses, thanks to the massive pandemic spending that then petered out.

The UK hasn’t done austerity, and it isn’t doing austerity now. The announced cuts aren’t actual reductions in spending, they are really just slowing the rate of spending *increase*. Labour promised massive spending increases last year, and a few of those are being paired back into a smaller increase. This is still an increase in real spending, just less of one than what was promised. This isn’t austerity.

And what of taxing the rich? They’re already pay all the tax. The top 10% of UK earners pay 60% of all taxes, the top 1% pay half of that (ie 30% of the total). The bottom 50% of earners pay 17% of tax. About a third of working age Britons pay no tax at all.

And that is significantly more progressive than on the Continent, the German 10% pay a little over half of their country’s taxes, the German 1% pay a little under a quarter. By and large, the UK taxes the rich more and taxes the poor less than in the rest of Europe.

Of course, the real definition of “rich” is “1 standard deviation above my personal income.” Everyone agrees that someone *else* must pay more, but will the British economy really be improved by chasing off its last remaining high earners to America? Europeans have boasted that Trump will set off a “brain drain” of wealthy Americans, but the difference in after-tax earnings means historically that brain drain has only happened in the America-ward direction. Further tax hikes will only enforce that paradigm.

Finally, shouldn’t the Government *invest* rather than *cut*? The private sector does it all the time! They take out eye-watering amounts of debt and yet somehow come out on top, the public sector should too!

But the Government doesn’t really invest. It spends money, and it uses the language of the private sector to claim that the money is spent well. But the Government doesn’t have the profit incentive that the private sector does, it’s overwhelming incentive is for optics and votes. So as Biden showed us, Government “investment” never really generates a return.

Labour is right to cut spending. They’ve already hiked taxes, and they need to get borrowing costs under control somehow. Besides, Government spending as a proportion of GDP is already nearly 50% in the UK, about 17,000 pounds per person. Just over 10% of the population (people making more than 50,000 pounds) are putting in more money than they’re getting out. The Government already spends a lot of money, and not well. More money in the fire won’t necessarily help.

But like Nigeria’s president Tinubu, Keir Starmer has talked a big game on growth without having the stomach to follow through with it. So again, here’s my unsolicited policy advice:

Keir Starmer should liberalize (liberalise?) the UK’s labor (labour?) laws. UK companies are significantly constrained in their abilities to fire, and this generates a reluctance to hire. The UK has stiff requirements on minimum notice before firing, minimum compensation when you get fired, and if you work there for 2 years a company needs to jump through significant regulatory hoops to be allowed to fire you. These laws should be liberalized to make it easier to fire, and therefore incentive companies to hire.

I know this proposal doesn’t sit well with any of my readers. We’re all workers, I doubt any of us is an owner. But here’s the rule of labor markets: easy go, easy come. The easier it is to fire a worker, the more willing a company will be to hire, and the more nimble a company will be at navigating a changing market.

If a UK company wants to expand, they have to do so very slowly and carefully because any new hire becomes a big liability after 2 years. UK Companies can’t downsize to adjust to market conditions, and so they are hesitant to upsize even during the good times. That makes them grow more slowly, and believe it or not it reduces wages.

Let’s look at Meta as an example: they laid off tens of thousands of employees when the “metaverse” was proven to be a bust. They were able to lay off quickly and adjust their company focus because those metaverse employees weren’t guaranteed a silver parachute. If firing was harder, they might have held on to their losing bet on the metaverse for much longer, because the cost of firing mitigated the upside potential in changing tactics. Then again if firing was harder, Meta might have never made a big expensive bet on the metaverse to begin with.

See the metaverse was a big, expensive failure, but US companies have to expect that most of their bets will fail. But some bets will succeed and wipe out all the loses from the failures, and so US companies are very quick to hire when they’re chasing a big bet.

The ballooning wages in Tech are a symptom of this. Companies like Google and Amazon have made big bet after big bet in the last 20 years, and to when those bets pay off the company starts offering higher and higher wages to expand the company on the success of their big bet. Sometimes those bets go bad and you get layoffs like at Meta. But many of those bets go good and you find that starting salaries in America become higher than mid-tier salaries in most of Europe.

And while Tech is the most famous example, this is endemic in every American industry from energy to pharma and beyond. Liberalized labor markets mean companies are willing to make big bets, meaning some of those bets pay off and the workers get chased by higher salaries. The workers are ultimately the ones who benefit here, that’s why America is such a magnet for high-skilled immigration (on top of its attractiveness for all immigration). Even with Trump in power, tens of thousands of highly skilled immigrants will continue to come to America every year he’s in office, the salaries are just too good to pass up.

That was a lot more than I expected to write on labor markets, but I’ve got more if you’re interested. Stay tuned for the next exciting installment of “if I ruled the world.”