Alex Morton: How Sunak can save £30 billion a year

21 Oct

Alex Morton Head of Policy at the CPS and a former Number Ten Policy Unit Member.

Today, the Office for National Statistics will announce the provisional figures of Government borrowing for the first six months for 2020/21. They will be truly dire. We know because borrowing in the first five months alone were bigger than the previous annual total, and by August this year the national debt was larger than the UK economy, rising by over 10 per cent from 2019/20’s total.

Putting aside the ongoing – and crucial – debate about the nature of lockdown restrictions, it is clear even on the most optimistic forecasts, and with the best decisions, the UK will end the pandemic with a serious debt and deficit problem. Even assuming higher borrowing for years, something must give.

For that reason, the Centre for Policy Studies today publishes the paper Saving £30 billion: Nine Simple Steps, which discusses, on rough but plausible estimates, nine savings to cut £30 billion a year from the Government’s spending without jeopardising frontline services, or asking the politically impossible.

The Government is in the middle of a Spending Review, and we believe that now is the time for proposals to stop the threat of tax rises which will both hit growth and hard-pressed workers, companies and families. None of the savings would impact frontline delivery and none of them ask for MPs to vote through what would be political suicide.

Government efficiency

Despite the arguments made that austerity means no further reduction in spend is possible, we find significant potential savings across a wide range of areas, none of which impact frontline delivery. The first group of savings are thus about making the state more efficient.

  • We analyse the number of Government administrative staff versus the private sector and find initial convergence but significant disparities in reductions in recent years, with the private sector slimming down this group more effectively. We therefore propose benchmarking Government administrative staff totals to the private sector and reducing these in the public sector once a post-Covid recovery gets underway.

We also propose –

  • To abolish some quangos and to bring all quangos under the control of a relevant department. Each department should create a single body to manage HR, marketing, and other administrative functions for all quangos it oversees. This should also make bureaucracies more accountable and improve public sector productivity.
  • Pushing toward greater use of back office function sharing in local government, as occurs between Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea. There is no need for 350 councils to have distinct IT or press or procurement teams. The Housing and Local Government Department should publish data on the administrative costs for each council to push forward action. This should enable many of the savings around unitarisation without the massive political rows.
  • Improving e-procurement and data sharing, noting that other countries such as South Korea or Estonia have significantly improved productivity and reduced costs through this route, and agreeing with critics of the existing Government procurement systems.
  • Since the state owns land and property worth a staggering £1 trillion, we call for an inventory of all non-operational land followed by a sale and leaseback model across all this non-operational land, rather than past Spending Review’s top down land targets for each department. Just selling off the Network Rail arches gained £1.4 billion while boosting growth, and Covid-19 has changed office work patterns, so this should raise serious sums.

Ensuring a fair state

The second group of savings are about ensuring that the state does not give excessively to one or other group, and create a state focused on the core tasks of government. We propose:

  • Replacing the triple lock with a dual lock, which still gives pensioners the best of inflation or wage growth, and removing the tax anomaly of the Winter Fuel Payment and just treating as taxable income like other benefits.
  • Sell and replace high-value council properties when they fall vacant with a less expensive nearby equivalent. It is deeply unfair there are million-pound council properties in many parts of London and this is not what making sure people have a roof over their heads is about. This doesn’t even mean anyone has to move – just no more new expensive tenancies.
  • Roll child benefit into the child tax credit system with a further taper that reduces the top 10 per cent or so of households (essentially capturing those with two fairly high earners to bring them into line with a single high earner household).
  • Cut overseas aid to 0.5 per cent, still placing the UK in the top 10 donor countries and moving on from 2005 when this target was set at 0.7 per cent at a time when India and even China were legitimate UK aid recipients, not emerging economic superpowers. It would be both immoral and politically toxic to make the other savings while protecting a budget overseas that has nearly doubled in recent years.

Taken together, these savings would help bring down the deficit to an acceptable level. They involve some hard decisions and confrontation of vested interests, but not impossible ones, and all should pass through the Commons, even in its new rebellious state. The alternative, ever higher borrowing, or even worse, ever higher taxes, is unthinkable if we are to achieve what the CPS believes the number one priority post-pandemic must be – restoring sustained economic growth. We call on the Government to investigate and takes forward these ideas as part of the Spending Review process.

Alex Morton: How Sunak can save £30 billion a year

21 Oct

Alex Morton Head of Policy at the CPS and a former Number Ten Policy Unit Member.

Today, the Office for National Statistics will announce the provisional figures of Government borrowing for the first six months for 2020/21. They will be truly dire. We know because borrowing in the first five months alone were bigger than the previous annual total, and by August this year the national debt was larger than the UK economy, rising by over 10 per cent from 2019/20’s total.

Putting aside the ongoing – and crucial – debate about the nature of lockdown restrictions, it is clear even on the most optimistic forecasts, and with the best decisions, the UK will end the pandemic with a serious debt and deficit problem. Even assuming higher borrowing for years, something must give.

For that reason, the Centre for Policy Studies today publishes the paper Saving £30 billion: Nine Simple Steps, which discusses, on rough but plausible estimates, nine savings to cut £30 billion a year from the Government’s spending without jeopardising frontline services, or asking the politically impossible.

The Government is in the middle of a Spending Review, and we believe that now is the time for proposals to stop the threat of tax rises which will both hit growth and hard-pressed workers, companies and families. None of the savings would impact frontline delivery and none of them ask for MPs to vote through what would be political suicide.

Government efficiency

Despite the arguments made that austerity means no further reduction in spend is possible, we find significant potential savings across a wide range of areas, none of which impact frontline delivery. The first group of savings are thus about making the state more efficient.

  • We analyse the number of Government administrative staff versus the private sector and find initial convergence but significant disparities in reductions in recent years, with the private sector slimming down this group more effectively. We therefore propose benchmarking Government administrative staff totals to the private sector and reducing these in the public sector once a post-Covid recovery gets underway.

We also propose –

  • To abolish some quangos and to bring all quangos under the control of a relevant department. Each department should create a single body to manage HR, marketing, and other administrative functions for all quangos it oversees. This should also make bureaucracies more accountable and improve public sector productivity.
  • Pushing toward greater use of back office function sharing in local government, as occurs between Westminster and Kensington & Chelsea. There is no need for 350 councils to have distinct IT or press or procurement teams. The Housing and Local Government Department should publish data on the administrative costs for each council to push forward action. This should enable many of the savings around unitarisation without the massive political rows.
  • Improving e-procurement and data sharing, noting that other countries such as South Korea or Estonia have significantly improved productivity and reduced costs through this route, and agreeing with critics of the existing Government procurement systems.
  • Since the state owns land and property worth a staggering £1 trillion, we call for an inventory of all non-operational land followed by a sale and leaseback model across all this non-operational land, rather than past Spending Review’s top down land targets for each department. Just selling off the Network Rail arches gained £1.4 billion while boosting growth, and Covid-19 has changed office work patterns, so this should raise serious sums.

Ensuring a fair state

The second group of savings are about ensuring that the state does not give excessively to one or other group, and create a state focused on the core tasks of government. We propose:

  • Replacing the triple lock with a dual lock, which still gives pensioners the best of inflation or wage growth, and removing the tax anomaly of the Winter Fuel Payment and just treating as taxable income like other benefits.
  • Sell and replace high-value council properties when they fall vacant with a less expensive nearby equivalent. It is deeply unfair there are million-pound council properties in many parts of London and this is not what making sure people have a roof over their heads is about. This doesn’t even mean anyone has to move – just no more new expensive tenancies.
  • Roll child benefit into the child tax credit system with a further taper that reduces the top 10 per cent or so of households (essentially capturing those with two fairly high earners to bring them into line with a single high earner household).
  • Cut overseas aid to 0.5 per cent, still placing the UK in the top 10 donor countries and moving on from 2005 when this target was set at 0.7 per cent at a time when India and even China were legitimate UK aid recipients, not emerging economic superpowers. It would be both immoral and politically toxic to make the other savings while protecting a budget overseas that has nearly doubled in recent years.

Taken together, these savings would help bring down the deficit to an acceptable level. They involve some hard decisions and confrontation of vested interests, but not impossible ones, and all should pass through the Commons, even in its new rebellious state. The alternative, ever higher borrowing, or even worse, ever higher taxes, is unthinkable if we are to achieve what the CPS believes the number one priority post-pandemic must be – restoring sustained economic growth. We call on the Government to investigate and takes forward these ideas as part of the Spending Review process.

Three actions that Ministers must take if we’re to live without fear. Or else they and we will be lost.

15 Oct

If ConservativeHome is writing about the Coronavirus, we know where to look for Government information.  A mass of guidance and information is available.

But if, on the other hand, we want to find out the number of operations postponed since the original lockdown was announced on March 24; or that of cancer deaths; or that of those brought about by heart disease; or the harm wrought by rising mental health problems, or domestic abuse, or lost schooling, the Government has not compiled the relevant information and statistics for publication in a way that makes these easily available to find and read.

We are better off if we wish to report the number of job losses.  But these are not issued together by the Government with, say, the rise in child and poverty since late March.  There is no one-stop-shop source of official information about the damage to the economy since then – to livelihoods as well as to lives.  As well, as we say, about those other harms to lives.

Now it is true that not all cancer deaths since March 24, say, can fairly be blamed on the long shutdown.  But it isn’t beyond the wit of man to work out the number of deaths since then compared to those of a comparable six month period in a usual year.

It is also the case that some of any figures published would be contestable.  But that’s also true of official Coronavirus estimates.  For example, the task of working out the number of deaths in England has been has been complicated by two major changes in the way they have been calculated (in April and August).

There is an urgent point to this dry analysis.  Today, Boris Johnson is trapped in a pincer movement between Labour, which is arguing for a short national lockdown, and his own party, which inclines to fewer restrictions faster.  He will try to find a compromise – by tightening the conditions in the most repressive of the Government’s new three tiers, and extending these.  That would enable him to toughen up while avoiding an England-wide shutdown.

So the Prime Minister is set gradually to be dragged by Keir Starmer towards that circuit-breaker lockdown in all but name.  And once in it, there will be no quick way out, since the test and trace system isn’t working well enough to quell the rise in cases that would follow the end of the shutdown.  So that wouldn’t happen at all, or at least only do in a curtailed form.  We would be in semi-lockdown semi-permanently – which seems to be SAGE’s real aim.

All in all, we are all being manoeuvered into an annual cycle of near-total winter lockdowns and partially-eased summer ones, until or unless a vaccine is widely available, herd immunity is achieved or the virus abates.

This would risk bankrupting the country.  National debt hit a record £2 trillion in September.  It has reached 100.5 per cent of GDP, the highest level in 60 years.  We cannot be sure that Britain would be able to borrow for the duration at the present rock-bottom rates to grow its way out of trouble.  Even if it could, there is no guarantee that enough growth would come to stave off medium-term spending cuts and tax rises.

These would intensify the damage that this crisis is inflicting on lives as well as livelihoods – the rising toll in cancer deaths and educational harm and mental health problems which we refer to above, and so much more, including more poverty and deprivation.

Which takes us back to those figures.  There is fierce dispute about whether voters are really as supportive of harsher lockdowns as the polls suggest.  But Johnson can scarcely be blamed for not wanting to sail against the prevailing political weather.

In order to steer his way out of it, he will have to change it: changing the weather, after all, is what the best politicians do. In short, the Government must try to widen and deepen the national conversation about the Coronavirus.  That will take a bit of time.

It entails drawing voters’ attention to the wider social and economic damage that living semi-permanently in lockdown would do. Some of the information that would help to do this is already out there.  As Raghib Ali has pointed out on this site, the Department of Health’s own health cost-benefit analysis shows that to date “in the long-term, the health impacts of the two month lockdown and lockdown-induced recession are greater than those of the direct Covid-19 deaths”.

But Government sources tell ConservativeHome that the Department of Health has been resistant to getting all the healthcare-related facts and figures together in one place.  That’s perhaps not surprising given its focus on the virus.  It’s more surprising that the Treasury hasn’t done a parallel exercise on the economy.

Ultimately, it’s up to Downing Street to make the case, backed up by more information and strategic messaging, against more national lockdowns, with the damage to lives and livelihoods that this would bring.  But the key player in forcing it to change is Rishi Sunak.

If we are truly to live with the virus and “live without fear”, as the Chancellor put it in the Commons recently, we must prepare to shift, in the absence of a track and trace plan that works, to a less restrictive and more voluntarist policy – one based on the balance of risk between the harm that Covid-19 does and the harm that shutdowns do.

And an indispensable part of any push for change is shifting public opinion to support it.  This site has been calling since the spring for the Government to publish its estimate of non-Coronavirus healthcare costs to date; of the costs of lockdown to the economy to date, and of the total cost and total saving of the lockdown (which can be calculated by assigning a value, as government does elsewhere, to each human life in Britain).

Sunak, together with Ministers in other economic departments, such as Alok Sharma at BEIS, needs to push for three actions:

  •  A regular Treasury report that calculates the economic cost of the lockdown.  That’s within his own gift, as it were, and the work could start today.
  • A rolling Department of Health assessment of the human cost of the shutdown.  That will be harder to get.  The Chancellor will need the Prime Minister’s support to extract it.
  • The creation of an economic counterweight to SAGE that considers livelihoods as well as lives, thus ensuring broader advice to the Prime Minister.

Finally, Ministers can’t act as the sole pathfinders for policy.  Intrinsic to Margaret Thatcher’s success during the 1980s was the work of think-tanks and Conservative MPs in preparing the way for change.

There are a mass of Tory backbench groups and wider pressure organisations.  The One Nation Caucus comes to mind for us at once, because Damian Green, its Chair, wrote a perceptive piece for this site yesterday about the choices that the Government now faces.  Perhaps it or the No Turning Back Group – to pick a Parliamentary group a bit different in outlook – could produce a report.

Some of the think tanks are already working in this field.  The Resolution Foundation has done an intergenerational audit.  (See also David Willetts’ recent ConHome piece.)  Policy Exchange has probed the Government’s NHS tracing app.  (Benjamin Barnard wrote about its findings for us here.)  The Institute of Economic Affairs has examined the NHS’ shortcomings; the Centre for Policy Studies has led the way in probing economic costs.

But more work will be needed if public opinion is to move.  In the meantime, Sunak must continue to lead the way.

Profile: Graham Brady, who played a quiet part in deposing May, and now keeps a watchful eye on Johnson

24 Sep

An adviser to Boris Johnson warned him earlier this year not to be alone with Graham Brady. Here already was a sign of prime ministerial weakness, or evasiveness, in the face of a determined upholder, not just of the rights of Conservative backbenchers, but of parliamentary scrutiny of the Executive.

Nobody would describe Sir Graham Brady as evasive. He is sincere, vigilant and as Chairman of the 1922 Committee, considers it his duty to convey, in the manner of a polite but implacable shop steward, the views of his members to the Prime Minister.

Like a considerable number of those members, he is furious that ministers have “got into the habit of ruling by decree” during the pandemic. In May, Brady called on ministers to look at “removing restrictions and removing the arbitrary rules and limitations on freedom as quickly as possible”, though he recognised that many voters approved of these restrictions:

“The public have been willing to assist. If anything, in some instances it may be that the public have been a little bit too willing to stay at home.”

Last weekend, Brady went further, and told The Sunday Telegraph:

“In March, Parliament gave the Government sweeping emergency powers at a time when Parliament was about to go into recess and there was realistic concern that NHS care capacity might be overwhelmed by Covid-19.

“We now know that the NHS coped well with the challenge of the virus and Parliament has been sitting largely since April. There is now no justification for ministers ruling by emergency powers without reference to normal democratic processes.

“It is essential that going forward all of these massively important decisions for family life, and affecting people’s jobs and businesses, should be exercised with proper supervision and control.”

In other words, Parliament must have the final say on any new measures the Government introduces to fight the pandemic. That is the amendment to the Coronavirus Act 2020 demanded by Sir Graham, which as Paul Goodman noted here on Monday, could command widespread assent on the Conservative benches:

“The danger for Downing Street, if it comes to a debate and a vote, is that it faces a coalition of high-minded constitutionalists, supporters of a Swedish option, low-minded opportunists who dislike Johnson, feel under-promoted, are grievance-haunted (or all three), plus backbenchers who are simply unhappy and bewildered.”

Every Tory leader has to be mindful of what his or her own troops will wear. The Conservative Party is a coalition of such disparate or even contradictory elements that many people, unaware of the lesson (“never again”) learned from the disastrous split over the Corn Laws in 1846, cannot comprehend why it remains together.

Brady possesses a resolute independence of mind. “He really couldn’t stand David Cameron,” one of his colleagues remarks. Nor, one may surmise, is he particularly keen on Johnson.

For in Brady, we find a Conservative of a different stamp. He was born in Salford in 1967 and educated at Altrincham Grammar School for Boys, an establishment to which he remains fiercely loyal, after which he read law at Durham, where he was immensely active in student politics and married Victoria Lowther, with whom he has two children.

In his twenties, he earned his living by working for public affairs companies, and also for a couple of years for the Centre for Policy Studies, before gaining selection for his home seat of Altrincham and Sale West, which in the Labour landslide of 1997 he retained by the slender margin of 1505 votes.

At the age of 29, he was the youngest Conservative MP, and in his maiden speech he declared his passionate loyalty to grammar schools:

“In the borough of Trafford, successive Conservative administrations have worked, not only to preserve our excellent grammar schools, but to raise standards in the high schools as well. What we have achieved is an example of selective education that works and it should be taken as a model for improving education across the country.

“I believe passionately in the role of the grammar schools as the greatest of social levellers and I fear that before long I will be called upon to defend my old school, Altrincham boys grammar school, from those who would see the remaining 160 grammar schools destroyed. As a believer in grammar schools, I have always thought that the goal of state education should be to achieve such high standards that parents would not wish to send their children to private schools.”

He served as Parliamentary Private Secretary to Michael Ancram, a junior Whip, Education spokesman and in 2003 as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the new Leader of the Opposition, Michael Howard.

The following year he became Shadow Europe Minister, a post he retained under Howard’s successor, David Cameron. But in 2007, when a tremendous row erupted within the party over grammar schools, Brady resigned because “in conscience” he had to be free to speak his mind, and to argue his unfashionable case:

“Grammar schools in selective areas are exactly the motor that does drive social mobility more effectively than comprehensive areas.”

A generally sympathetic colleague says of Brady that when grammar schools are mentioned “his eye lights up with insanity”, an expression coined by Disraeli, who reported that this was what happened to General Peel on hearing the words “household suffrage”.

Cameron says in his memoirs, For The Record:

“I felt that the call to ‘bring back grammars’ was an anti-modernisation proxy, and I wasn’t going to stand for it.”

There was a class element in this row. Etonians couldn’t generally see the point of grammar schools. Conservatives from less gilded backgrounds often knew from personal experience that such schools could transform lives.

In 2010, Brady stood for the chairmanship of the ’22, just after Cameron’s brazen attempt to neuter that committee as the voice of backbenchers had been seen off, with his proposal to allow members of the Government to vote in its elections being withdrawn.

Brady’s resignation three years earlier had proved his independence, and he had indicated, after the 2010 election, that he and other Tory MPs would have preferred a minority Conservative Government – “That, I think, is generally the feeling of colleagues” – to the coalition formed by Cameron with the Liberal Democrats.

In a piece for ConHome he explained why he was standing:

“Coalition government has been hailed as a part of a ‘new politics’. I believe that enhancing the role of Parliament and the status of MPs as the elected champions of our constituents is just as important. For too many years the Executive has eroded the power of Parliament and back benchers have increasingly been marginalised, I want to play a part in reversing that process.”

Brady defeated the other candidate, Richard Ottaway, who was thought to be favoured by Cameron, by 126 votes to 85.

If one wants to see how deeply Brady feels about things, one has only to read the Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture which he delivered under the auspices of the Centre for Policy Studies in April 2014. He began by quoting with approval Margaret Thatcher when she gave the same lecture in 1996:

“In politics, integrity really lies in the conviction that it’s only on the basis of truth that power should be won – or indeed can be worth winning. It lies in the unswerving belief that you have to be right.”

Brady went on to say:

“Political parties have become over-reliant on focus groups and opinion research to identify the key target voters in the key ‘swing’ seats. The message is too often crafted to appeal – not to be right, and the biggest focus group of all – the British electorate – grows ever more disenchanted.”

Conservative backbenchers have not grown disenchanted with Brady. Sir Charles Walker, who became Vice-Chairman of the ’22 in 2010, the same year as Brady became Chairman, told ConHome:

“He’s a man who believes in Parliament and a man who believes in doing things properly. Graham is straight as a die. He’s straight in his dealings with people. So it’s no surprise he’s moving this Amendment. The Chairman of the ’22 should be spiky. That’s his role – to be a critical friend. The ’22 is rightly regarded as being a powerful organisation and leaders are best advised to be wary of it. But it’s also capable of providing great support in time of difficulty.”

The most difficult period in Brady’s chairmanship came during the last two years of Theresa May’s prime ministership. He was knighted in the 2018 New Year honours, the investiture taking place in March 2018, so at this point in the story he becomes once more Sir Graham.

The ’22 was fractious and divided, and Sir Graham was the recipient of the letters from Tory MPs which, if and when the 15 per cent threshold was reached  – 48 MPs out of 317 – would mean she faced a motion of no confidence.

Nobody knew how many letters he had received, for he did not breathe a word, but nobody doubted he was showing complete integrity in his counting of them.

In December 2018 the 15 per cent threshold was crossed, but the Prime Minister survived the subsequent ballot by 200 votes to 117. This supposedly meant she could not be challenged by this method for another year.

But on 24th May 2019, after the Conservatives had performed disastrously in European elections which would not have taken place in the UK had she managed to get Brexit done, out she went.

Brady’s role in this was one of the utmost delicacy. He reckoned the game was up, but had to say so with discretion, for not all his colleagues agreed with him.

Once she realised she had to go, he wished to take soundings to see whether he could launch his own leadership bid. Since the ’22 would be running the leadership election, he stepped down.

He soon found he had no support, so he did not run. Nor, to the astonishment of more worldly figures, did he endorse any other candidate: not even his fellow Leaver, Boris Johnson, when it became evident that Johnson was going to win.

Others who rushed to join the winning side were rewarded with Cabinet posts. A minister told ConHome: “I know Graham believed he was going to be offered a job, and thought it should be a Cabinet position.

“But he had never come out for Boris, and Boris’s whole operation is based on people who are loyal to him.

“Graham was disappointed he didn’t get anything, went back to being Chairman of the ’22, and since then he’s been quite grumpy.”

This reading of events comes from a Johnson loyalist, and others will feel it was to Sir Graham’s credit that he did not sell out his long-established independence.

Sir Graham, who is still only 53 years old, is in person an affable figure, ready to be amused by things, unperturbed by journalists, and not inclined to idealise Tory MPs, of whom he remarked at the 2018 party conference, when the question of letters demanding a vote of confidence was starting to become of interest:

“The distance between what some of my colleagues say they might have done and what they actually have done can be considerable.”

On another occasion, interviewed by ConHome, he lamented the “ennui, apathy and cynicism” shown by colleagues who declined to use the machinery set up to enable them to feed in policy proposals for consideration in the 2015 manifesto.

He is loyal, as we have seen, to an idea of truth which stands above party politics. Sir Graham is now a severe impediment to any attempt by Downing Street to go on running things without proper parliamentary scrutiny.

And if and when Johnson suffers a severe loss of confidence on his own side of the House, Sir Graham will once more find himself being asked from day to day, indeed from hour to hour, how many letters he has received.

Sam Hall: Extinction Rebellion is completely wrong in its approach to climate change

15 Sep

Sam Hall is the Director of the Conservative Environment Network

As a Conservative environmentalist, I believe passionately in the need for stronger action on climate change. I initially regarded Extinction Rebellion as wrong, but well-meaning. I’ve now come to the conclusion they are not only wrong, but actively harmful to the cause they claim to champion.

During their first action in 2019, I was sympathetic to the urgency with which XR demanded action on climate change, and the importance they attached to the issue. I shared, to some extent, their frustration that it wasn’t given the prominence in political debates that its seriousness merits. And I admired their skill in triggering a national conversation on climate change.

However I now believe Extinction Rebellion have gone badly off course with their use of polarising tactics, and that their approach to fighting climate change is completely wrong.

It has become apparent, for example, that they predominantly direct their protests against people and organisations on the right of British politics. Boris Johnson, the Centre for Policy Studies, and the Telegraph are some of their recent targets. But to address climate change effectively over multiple political cycles, we need the support of all political traditions – particularly Conservatives.

We need messages and messengers that will appeal to those groups among whom support for climate policies is lowest, not attacks on the political leaders and institutions they trust. We need to celebrate when once-sceptical Conservatives put forward good climate policies, not criticise their lack of purity.

Another problem is their uninspiring message of despair. Remember XR founder Roger Hallam’s claim that climate change will see billions of deaths, or children at school today will not survive to adulthood?

Of course, unmitigated climate change is incredibly dangerous, but fighting it requires us to be hopeful. We must believe that, if we act, we can succeed in stopping the most severe impacts. We shouldn’t dwell on apocalypse, but rather focus on solutions that create jobs and bring new industries to Britain, while making our towns and cities more prosperous, greener, and healthier places to live.

We also have to bring people with us. Yet by letting an all-powerful assembly, made up of a tiny unelected minority, decide our pathway to net zero, XR is attempting to short-circuit the democratic process.

We do need comprehensive public engagement on climate change, and there is certainly a useful role for assemblies in developing policy. But decisions should be taken by elected politicians that the voters can hold accountable and kick out of office if they choose.

Vital public consent for climate action would quickly be shredded by the pace of change they are demanding. Net zero by 2025 would be eye-wateringly expensive, and cause huge economic dislocation. Instead, we need a transition that is as quick as possible, but which gives people time to adjust, and companies the opportunity to invest for net zero as part of the normal business cycle.

Disagreeing with this 2025 target doesn’t mean you aren’t worried about climate change. Far from it. Environmental ambition should not – although frequently is – measured by the earliness of a target date or the scale of government spending. Truly ambitious policies must also be feasible, costed, and command the support of the public.

Nor is it about being ‘anti-science’. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that the world must reach net zero emissions by 2050 in order to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees. The UK’s independent Committee on Climate Change agrees that a 2050 net zero target meets our obligations under the Paris Agreement.

While I would be delighted if technological innovation meant we could reach net zero before 2050, it is the case that our 2050 net zero target has a much sounder basis in science than XR’s 2025 deadline.

Nor should we excuse their extreme actions as creating political space for moderate proposals on tackling climate change. For one thing, that is not what most XR campaigners are aiming to achieve. They do not accept compromise.

More broadly, the media and parliamentary debate around Extinction Rebellion is increasingly focused on policing and human rights issues. Note that the statement on XR in Parliament last week was given by the policing minister, not the climate change minister.

Even the climate discussion they provoke is unhelpful. In the media, sceptics of climate science who opportunistically elide XR with mainstream environmentalism, are pitched against left-wing climate activists. XR’s demands and tactics are inimical to a reasoned, evidence-based debate on climate.

But enough negativity. Here is my alternative approach. We need a credible, deliverable and affordable plan to reach net zero by 2050. One that creates millions of well-paid green jobs across the country, that revitalises our towns and cities with the clean industries of the future, and that harnesses the genius of our scientists and the creativity of our entrepreneurs. One that gives consumers freedom to choose between attractive and compelling solutions, and where private-sector competition and government support make them affordable for all.

We need to create the frameworks for businesses to invest in clean technologies, including an appropriate balance of fiscal incentives, regulation, and market signals. And the government needs to make it easier for people to make greener choices in their daily lives, to gain skills to work in clean industries, and to participate in community efforts to improve their local environment.

We have so much more to do to get on track to, and reach, net zero. We need major programmes to upgrade homes, restore nature, and build out renewable energy. We need to deploy new technologies such as green hydrogen, carbon capture storage, and heat pumps, and bring down their costs. In sectors like aviation and shipping, we need to develop and commercialise technologies that are still in their research phase. And we need to do all of this while bringing the public with us and keeping the UK economy competitive.

We have a great prize within our grasp – a clean, reindustrialised Britain, and nature restored to our beautiful landscapes – but we should be clear that achieving it will be hard work.

XR is making that vision even harder to achieve by alienating the public. I fear they are coarsening and toxifying our public discourse on climate change, and fuelling the extremes. For the sake of the climate, I hope they change course.

Archie Hill: Strong devolution must mean giving more counties unitary status

6 Aug

Archie Hill is a researcher at Henham Strategy. He also works in the research team at the Centre for Policy Studies.

Just over a year ago, during his very first week as Prime Minister, Boris Johnson made a speech in Manchester, warming to a familiar theme:

“We are going to give greater powers to council leaders and to communities. We are going to give more communities a greater say over changes to transport, housing, public services, and infrastructure that will benefit their areas and drive local growth.”

Familiar, in the sense that every recent government has promised greater devolution of powers at a local level. A new wave of decentralisation is always on the horizon.

But this Prime Minister’s commitment to devolution rings true. Decentralisation may be a common refrain, but it is a long time since it has assumed so central a role in a government’s platform: the ‘levelling up’ agenda upon which the Conservatives fought and won so handsomely is rooted in local devolution. Not for nothing did the Prime Minister describe himself, grappling when pressed for a definable ideology, as “basically a Brexity Hezza.” As well as a flamboyant hairstyle, he shares with Lord Heseltine a belief that reforming local government, and setting out more coherent efficient structures which work properly, can help unleash growth around the country.

It was Heseltine, after all, whose report No Stone Unturned demonstrated the disjointed state of local government in England, with different tiers of councils operating at different levels and overlapping responsibilities; as wasteful as it is confusing. At a local level, this confusion reaches absurdity: just getting a pothole or a sign fixed can involve negotiating county, district, and parish councils, each with their own separate remit. Small wonder, then, that we found that fewer than one in five of those surveyed in our polling thought it was easy to understand who was responsible for what, across local government. This confusion leads very quickly to apathy.

In recent months, as part of a team at Henham Strategy, I have been working on a report, commissioned by the County Councils Network and published this week, setting out where the current system is failing and how powers can be devolved more effectively at a local level.

A more effective – and accountable – means of local decision-making is vital. Fortunately, the government has an opportunity to make lasting changes, in the form of the upcoming, much-trumpeted Devolution White Paper from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Even before the Covid-19 pandemic, ours was the most centralised state in the western world. As the Centre for Policy Studies found in their report A Rising Tide, locally determined taxes make up just 1.7 per cent of GDP in the UK, compared to 15.9 per cent in Sweden, or 10.9 per cent in Germany. But during the current crisis, the government has felt compelled to take further control of large segments of the economy and manage it from the commanding heights of Whitehall. This ignores the real lesson of Covid, which is that it is at the local level where the most effective response has occurred.

County authorities have made some of largest contributions to the national effort, ranging from shielding the vulnerable and protecting the NHS, putting in place infection control plans for care homes, sourcing hundreds of thousands of pieces of PPE, and helping secure local businesses’ futures. When previous governments talked about local devolution, too often what they had in mind was the creation of new mayoral bodies covering a large urban area, in London, Greater Manchester, or the West Midlands. This focus on metropolitan areas has been to the cost of counties and those who live in them.

Half of our population is located in England’s counties; half of our overall economic output is created there too. They already provide accountable local leadership – in the form of elected councillors – that is readily recognisable by people who live there. Indeed, our commissioned polling found that only nine per cent of those surveyed thought that mayors should have more powers than county council leaders.

A number of county councils have become unitary authorities, and many other councils we spoke to are keen to follow suit. The opportunities of a single, more streamlined body that can speak with a unified voice for the whole county are enormous, both in terms of cost savings and more effective decision-making at scale. Where district councils too often act as a brake on development and strategic planning, unitary authorities provide a more responsive, joined-up form of local leadership across a larger population. Cornwall Council demonstrates this, bringing together representatives from health, business, transport, and local town/parish councils all round one table: the result is that Cornwall has seen the highest annual average increase in new homes in England since it became a unitary authority, all whilst saving £15.5m per year through reduced running costs. It has also been able to distribute grants during Covid faster than anywhere else.

The government must make it easier for more counties to follow this path, setting out a consistent approach to unitarisation for local leaders rather than relying on a ‘deal-by-deal’ basis. To embrace levelling up, they must start by giving local areas the means to pursue this agenda themselves – from housing and planning to infrastructure, from skills and employment to health and social care. Instead of the current patchwork system, a new, more effective form of local governance is necessary to unlock regional growth and drive our economic recovery. If, where previously there have been only promises, the Prime Minister wants action on local devolution, then it is time to make counties count.

Stamp duty cut welcome, but concerns about “tomorrow’s taxpayers”. Centre-right think tanks react to Sunak statement.

8 Jul

Adam Smith Institute –  Matthew Lesh, Head of Research, said:

“Stamp duty is Britain’s worst tax. This temporary cut is the right move at the right time to get Britain moving. Temporary measures to get young people work experience, to build inwork skills, are also welcome in the face of an increased minimum wage.

“Furlough continues for a few more months but reality will hit eventually. In the forthcoming Budget, the Chancellor should cut the cost of hiring by permanently reducing the burden of employers’ national insurance, remove red tape like occupational licenses, and abolish the factory tax to get businesses investing in their futures.

“The stimulus proposals are very questionable. The VAT cut and subsidising restaurants will be expensive and provide limited benefit. People aren’t spending on food, accommodation and attractions because of safety concerns, not lack of demand or cash.”

Centre for Policy Studies – Robert Colvile, Director, said:

“We welcome the focus on jobs and training, which is what the CPS recently called for in our report ‘After the Virus‘, but the challenge will be how to support the economy as we transition to new ways of working in a post-virus economy.

“You can see the Government is trying to strike that balance with this package, but these measures are temporary, and will have to be paid for down the line. This is why we would like to see the sort of long-term structural change that will maximise growth, support businesses and encourage them to create new jobs without placing the burden on the taxpayer.”

TaxPayers’ Alliance – John O’Connell, Chief Executive, said:

“The chancellor announced a ‘plan for jobs’ but it’s tomorrow’s taxpayers who will have to work hard to pay for it all.

“While the jobs retention bonus will help ensure that the furlough scheme isn’t just an expensive pause on mass lay-offs, taxpayers will be concerned about how and when they will pay the bills for ever-more spending promises.

“It is cheering that the chancellor appreciates the economic benefits of cutting taxes and in particular lifting the stamp duty threshold will provide a boon to the housing market.

“That said, while easing the burden on taxpayers is always welcome, we must look at longer-term tax simplification and put a stop to temporary fiddles.”

Institute of Economic Affairs – Professor Syed Kamall, Academic and Research Director, said:

“We are in an unprecedented situation and there remains the issue that many individuals and families are fearful of leaving their homes to resume every day activities. The Chancellor can only do so much in terms of measures introduced to get the economy moving.

“The cut to Stamp Duty is welcome but why isn’t it permanent? It is a destructive, regressive tax that clogs up the housing market and limits labour mobility. Making it permanent would get the property market moving and encourage those who want to downsize as well as those looking for family houses, freeing up homes for first-time buyers.

“It is disappointing more was not announced to encourage private investment in infrastructure – such as reopening old railways or rezoning to allow homes to be built in places being vacated by shops, such as high streets.”

Resolution Foundation – Torsten Bell, Chief Executive, said:

“Today’s Budget in-all-but-name was a £30 billion top up to a pandemic response that is approaching 10 per cent of GDP and will push borrowing to around £350 billion this year.

“The focus on jobs and some, but not all, hard-hit sectors was very welcome. Kickstart jobs for young people represents a tried and tested policy, but the new Job Retention Bonus is poorly targeted at those jobs that are most at risk of being lost.

“The Chancellor is right to focus VAT cuts on food, accommodation and attractions. However, the lack of support for face-to-face retail means significant challenges for Britain’s High Streets. The innovative meal deal voucher scheme is far too small scale to make a significant difference.

 “The Chancellor, having previously announced huge measures to protect household incomes, has now set out much more normal demand support for the next phase of this crisis. That might be sufficient if the UK sees the V-shaped recovery we all hope fora. But given that this economic crisis is likely to be with us until a vaccine is found, he should expect to be returning with further measures to support the economy in the Autumn.”