It’s the economy, Boris

When it comes to Literature and the arts, all wise Tories are in favour of cultural appropriation and pour scorn on the Lefties who oppose it. But it may be another matter when it comes to politics. 

Boris Johnson appears to be guilty of large-scale political appropriation and this is causing a lot of unease in Tory circles. That would be even greater if people concluded that the PM is appropriating a favourite phrase of Nye Bevan’s: that ‘the language of priorities is the religion of socialism’ – or should that now be Boris-ism? Boris’s religious beliefs are as opaque as his political ones. Beyond ‘have cake, eat cake’ it all seems to be a matter of making it up as he goes along. His inability to inspire trust helps to explain Tory scepticism about last week’s measures.

Admittedly, the PM did receive help from a wholly predictable quarter: the Leader of the Opposition. Forewarned is supposed to me fore-armed: not in Sir Stumbler’s case. It is odd. He is neither stupid nor thoughtless and Boris’s announcement had been well-trailered. Yet the best Keir Starmer could do was order Labour MPs to vote against higher spending on the NHS. Tory MPs enjoyed the squirmings. Successful political opportunism always cheers up the troops. The doubts come later. Is opportunism really enough, and is Boris capable of anything else?

Yet there is an intellectually respectable case for at least some of the tax rises. Accused of breaking a manifesto commitment, the PM was right to tell the truth: not something that comes naturally to him. In his defence, he could have quoted Keynes. ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?’ As Keynes is not the ideal name to assuage Tory discomforts, he might also have cited Margaret Thatcher. In 1981, at the height of a recession, with unemployment steaming towards three million, her government raised taxes, including National Insurance. She did offer some compensation by relaxing monetary policy, though on a much smaller scale than today’s monetary permissiveness.

But it would be wrong to accuse Boris of being anti-Tory. He is merely finding it hard to reconcile two crucial elements of the Tory tradition: low taxes and fiscal rectitude. That raises the question; is this the right moment for rectitude? Economically and politically, everything depends on growth. Although the recovery from the pandemic has been speedier than most forecasters predicted, there has been some recent stuttering. With the furlough and the Covid-related tax credits coming to an end, is this a good moment to take demand out of the economy, especially at the expense of businesses? Growth depends on animal spirits. Tax rises dampen those. 

Then again, with the national debt at a hundred percent of GDP, is it not time to increase prices on Boris’s cake-stall? Up to now, the Treasury has had no problem in selling gilts. Although there is an obvious temptation to continue to exploit low interest rates, is there not a risk that sentiment might change? It is not an easy call. I would be tempted to conclude that a relatively small decrease in the borrowing requirement is not worth the depressing effect on business confidence. Growth should take priority, especially post-Brexit.

Some ardent Brexiteers talked as if leaving the EU would automatically transform the UK into Singapore-on-Thames. Some were naive enough to believe it. But if we disrupt trading relations with our major export market, there are bound to be costs, especially when the EU itself is hardly thriving. So there is an argument for fiscal and monetary laxity – though God knows what Lady Thatcher’s ghost would make of that.

But there is no argument for wasting money. Even if it is fun to upset the Labour party, a Tory government should not give the impression that increased health spending is ipso facto good. Everything depends on how well it is spent. By advanced world standards, the NHS is good value. There must be a case for increased funding, yet where would it go? What are the variables on which better health care depends? They may well include more doctors, and training them takes time. Although there is an urgent need to cut post-Covid waiting lists, it seems unlikely that this could be done quickly.

Earlier this year, I was in St Thomas’s, being treated for Covid, and was very impressed. Why is Tommy’s excellent while other hospitals lag behind? Is it money? I suspect that it has a lot to do with ethos. So how do we universalise best practice in the NHS? Not, surely, by mere largesse. In the early Eighties, the late John Hoskyns thought that he had identified a basic flaw in the NHS. It had no central nervous system. It did not seem to know what it was doing and why. In area health authority A, a given course of treatment cost X. In B next door, it cost 3X, with no discernible difference in outcomes or patient satisfaction. John thought that the answer lay in better management. Unfortunately however, the contract was given to Dr Frankenstein’s laboratory. From being undermanaged, the NHS’s administration rapidly became over-manned – and there is a further complication. In dealing with health, every government faces obstruction from an unscrupulous trade union. Although the British Medical Association might sound like a learned body, it could teach Arthur Scargill a few tricks. However much the government spends, it is never enough. On the day that the BMA expresses gratitude, they will be selling ice lollies in Hell.

When dealing with the NHS, the government should adhere to a simple principle. Think before you spend.

The same is true of social care. That problem has been building up for years. The Cameron Government thought about introducing an insurance scheme but was not able to solve all the technical difficulties. Now that the figure has been capped, it might be worth revisiting that. 

In the short-run the government has opted for politics over morality. It could be argued that people who build up assets during their working lives must expect to draw on them in old age. It could also be argued that it is virtually a human right to leave your house to your children. People who think like that tend to vote Tory. It must be mere coincidence that the government has increased the tax burden on those of working age, in order to subsidise older voters. The calculation must be that by the time of the next election, all this will have been forgotten.

So it might be, if the economy continues to grow and if any further spikes in Covid are met with stoicism rather than panic. ‘It’s the economy, stupid:’ there is no wiser political insight. Yet wisdom should also be deployed in thinking through health and social care. Those great questions cannot be solved just by watching Sir Keir Starmer stumble.