In the excitement of the 650 people shouting about probably inaccurate economic forecasts that passes for a major state event, it can be easy to miss the big picture.
This big picture has three aspects.
First, we are only in the fifth year of what the government says is a decade of “fiscal consolidation”. By the time this process is complete, someone born on the day that Lehman Brothers collapsed will be attending secondary school.
Second, there will be further spending cuts. These could see the size of the UK state as a share of the economy return to levels last seen when Neville Chamberlain was prime minister, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility.
Third, the government’s economic plans don’t really add up. In the next parliament, taxes will have to rise, fiscal targets will have to missed, or spending will to have to be cut in a way that is even more brutal than currently expected. Read more
Since Scots voted against independence on September 18 the Scottish National party has surged in opinion polls and appointed a new, popular leader; pro-independence journalists have launched a newspaper, The National; and the Scottish government is preparing to wield more power than any other devolved parliament in Europe.
“No” voters could be forgiven for considering theirs a pyrrhic victory. After all, 55 per cent of Scottish voters opted against independence. Nevertheless, this was not a vote for the status quo. A majority of Scots want more devolution. The leaders of three biggest (for now) UK political parties belatedly then rashly promised as much on the eve of the independence referendum. On Thursday, the Smith Commission, charged with working out the details of further devolution, will issue its recommendations.
Although the comparison is imperfect, the recommendations will mark the point when Scotland becomes, in fiscal terms, the Basque Country of the United Kingdom.
In his conference speech, David Cameron said a Conservative government released from coalition would make two changes to income tax by 2020. He presented the first – a rise in the amount of money people earn before they pay income tax to £12,500 – as a tax cut for minimum wage workers. He presented the second – a rise in the level at which workers start paying the 40p rate of income tax to £50,000 – as a tax cut for the middle class. Neither change is quite what Mr Cameron says it is.
The chart below suggests how much people making various incomes stand to benefit from the changes. (Source: Ben Richards.) Treat it as illustrative: the exact numbers will depend, among other things, on when the cuts are introduced. But it shows how the bulk of the benefits would be skewed towards those in the top quarter of earners.
The Parisian arriving in London by train alights at a resplendent station. St Pancras, and the adjacent King’s Cross, make Gare du Nord look like a provincial hub. The surrounding area, once a ramshackle collection of properties, is gleaming with new hotels, offices and prime accommodation. It is a clear sign of how London’s economic geography has changed in the 21st century. The inner city has developed rapidly. Poverty is moving to the outskirts of the capital. As its core grows faster than its periphery, London is becoming more like Paris. Read more
Many people make irrational, uninformed and potentially devastating decisions about what they do with their money. They can be bamboozled or defrauded by those with better information or cruel intentions. The financial crisis was only the most acute reminder of how pervasive poor decision-making can be when it comes to money.
From today, pupils aged 14-16 in the UK will be taught “financial literacy” as part of the national curriculum. They will be taught about credit and debt, savings and pensions, and public finance. (It is like the FT graduate scheme on a massive scale.) The hope is that this will better equip youngsters to make smart decisions about what to do – and what not to do – with their money as they go through their lives.
Will it work? Read more
An independent Scotland would not have to join the EU. But most Scots want Scotland to be an EU member and it is a central plank of SNP policy. There is no precedent, however, for what happens if part of a member state becomes independent and wishes to remain part of the EU. (Greenland, Germany and Czechoslovakia are all relevant but different cases.) This is one reason why both sides have been vigorously engaging in claim and counter-claim over EU law.
I don’t want to get carried away – it is all too easy to admire someone’s goal and their tenacity while forgetting to evaluate them based on their results and in their historical context. At this point, it takes Govian willpower to say that his structural reforms to the education system have been a success – for three reasons.
Firstly, and rather obviously, we hardly know anything about the performance of children that have attended free schools, or those who have been taught under the Gove era. Ofsted reviews of free school suggest they are no better than others. What we know about the features of the best performing schools across the world (mostly teacher quality but also data-driven classrooms, high aspirations, longer hours, etc.) are only sporadically apparent in the first waves of free schools.
Secondly, the National Audit Office and others have raised serious concerns over the transparency of the selection process, free schools’ availability where they are most needed, and the looming trouble in the department’s capital budget. Collateral damage from a battle against an incalcitrant bureaucracy? Perhaps. When you blast a blob goo comes out. But one can not read these reports and celebrate success.
Thirdly, Mr Gove may have been the most radical reformer in the coalition but his changes should be seen in their proper context. Checking them against Thatcher’s legacy is important. So too is realising that they are a turbocharged version of the reforms began under the Blair government – free schools are academies. (Literally – they are academies under law.) I sense a tendency among some Conservatives to confuse how Mr Gove revolutionised the party’s views on education with him being the first and only person in the country to want to shake up the schools system. Read more
Today’s young people are less likely to booze, take drugs or commit crimes than previous generations. They are sober, serious and staid. Socially, their maturity belies their years. But as a new report makes clear, the Great Recession has made them economically juvenile: in receipt of more support from the state and from their parents. Young people are growing up faster and slower than their forebears.
In their annual survey on living standards in Britain, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggest that the fastest growing type of inequality over the past five years has been between the young and the old, rather than between the rich and the poor or London and the rest of the country. (There is of course overlap here, and the IFS says the rich-poor divide will soon widen.) This rupture promises to affect the future of Britain’s economy for generations to come.
Not a single track has been laid for High Speed 2 and yet George Osborne is already talking about “High Speed 3″, an extension of the project to link Manchester and Leeds. In a speech on Monday in Manchester, the chancellor spoke of his support for a “Northern powerhouse”: a conurbation to rival London, connected by transport links such as HS3, and governed by independent mayors. It is an excellent idea.
Although there will be a temptation to see Mr Osborne’s speech as simply another part of the HS2 debate, that would be simplistic. It represents the coming together of different conceptions of the future for British cities – and as ever political necessities.