March 20, 2025 • 16 mins
Eight months after Labour’s landslide victory, Bloomberg examines if the UK government is on track to meet key election pledges. Senior reporter Phil Aldrick and Bloomberg Economics chief UK economist Dan Hanson join hosts Francine Lacqua and Allegra Stratton.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Welcome to the City of.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
London, the City of the City of London. Beleave mine
the gap between the and the financial heart of the country.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
The City, the City.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Welcome to in the City.
Speaker 4 (00:34):
And clear of the doors. Pe Welcome to in the City.
Each week we unpack a story that's crucial to the
world's financial capitals.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
I'm Francis Laqua and I'm Alecra Stratton. What, Fran can
you believe it's only been eight months since the change
of government.
Speaker 4 (00:50):
Back then it felt like a much simpler time for Cures,
Darmer and probably everyone else.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Back then, public support for Kissed Arma and his party
was higher. The US elect felt like a distant reality,
and with the clear intent to reset relations with businesses,
the Labor Party's promise of tangible improvements to Britain's quality
of life felt achievable.
Speaker 4 (01:10):
So here we are in March, popularity of the government sleeping.
Of course, we have the US President Donald Trump firmly
in office, which brings its own challenges, and those key
election pledges, well, are they on.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Track, Legra well, indeed, So we're going to try and
answer that in the city this week. And to do that,
we've got the team here at Bloomberg who just in
the last few days have published a scorecard on how
the government's doing. And we've got the two brilliant minds
who put it together, Phil Aldrich, Senior UK Economy reporter
and Dan Hansen, UK economist on the Bloomberg Economics team.
(01:44):
So do we want to do methodology or not? Why?
Speaker 4 (01:48):
Why the score a card?
Speaker 1 (01:49):
Why or not not?
Speaker 2 (01:50):
How? We picked five key measures, basically the economic measures
that the Labor government has set itself again. So those
are the ambitions it as this said, it wants to
have the highest growth in the G seven and they've
put a nominal two point five percent and your growth
rate on that. And they also have an additional one,
(02:10):
which was raising living standards by real household disposable income.
Ahead there as an eighty percent employment target. There's a
pledge that we're going to have fiscal stability and economic stability.
They're saying ending austerity and they want to build one
point five million homes. So we just took what their
ambitions were and then we said.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
How they do.
Speaker 4 (02:32):
I mean, eight months is a good timeframe because it's
eight months into a five year fixed term parliament, and
there's a lot going on.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
Obviously, when you say in a five year term, you
might argue it's probably a bit unfair to give them
a mark at the moment. But actually these things, they
are very stretching targets. I think that's the thing first
to sort of pick out with this. Perhaps raising living
standard is in the very stretching target, but two and
a half percent growth year is a very stretching target.
Building that many homes is very stretching targets. Obviously, feel
said about the employment target. These are all very as
(03:03):
I say, stretching things to achieve, and it's important I
think that the government not just held account internally, but
we're here to sort of cast our eye over it
and look at these things. As you've both said at
the top of the show there the world has changed
dramatically now they're going to have to adapt labor as
well as we go forward. But I think at least
the top line of this that we've Phil and I
looked at the sort of living standards piece, I mean,
(03:26):
surely it's every government's goal to raise living standard over
at Parliament, right, and actually when we looked at it,
we think they'll probably do it, but it's not going
to be as convincing as they'd like it to be.
We don't think, at least it.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
Doesn't really matter that it does it if they've got
a numerical increase.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
No. I think it would matter though if they turned
around in twenty twenty nine and said, yes, we've raised
living stands, but it's not as fast as the last government. Okay, yeah,
that was one of the big economic reasons at least
why didn't do particularly well in the elections. So I
think people want to feel richard, don't they. They don't
want to see a number higher. You want to actually.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
Feel better off than you are five years Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
Do you feel like there's more money in your pocket?
Speaker 1 (04:04):
And also I was struck at the growth event that
Rachel Reeves did some weeks ago. I think you were there,
phil In is it Seamen's factory where she was asked
what is the metric and she chose to say increase
in living standards.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Yeah, it's effectively a downgrade in their ambitions because no
government since records began in nineteen fifty five has failed
to improve living standards, and so Dan's measure he adjusts
the OBR outlook for productivity to something which is a
bit more in line with the consensus forecasts, and on
that measure, the forecast would suggest that they are going
to have the smallest increase in living standards since nineteen
(04:38):
fifty five, which would be a failure. Basically, if you
delivered the smallest uplift in real let me stand that
that's not something to celebrate, is.
Speaker 4 (04:46):
It, phil I think for boosting growth and living standards
you give them a five out of ten. Yeah, And
this is also because basically you know that you measure
it by a real household disposable income for ahead, Why
is it five out of ten? Why are they not
doing better on metric?
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Because you're starting with just eight months of the five
years having gone. So you've got to look at what
policies they're putting in place and make a judgment on
what they've been able to achieve so far. And so
the outlook is not particularly good if you take that
those measures just mentioned, but what they've done so far
to boost growth. On the downside, one thing they're doing
(05:22):
which doesn't help growth is the Knicks rise, So the
payer all tax, which obviously everyone is saying is damaging
for growth. But on the upside, they've got this longer
term plan to basically invest much more in a public infrastructure,
and the OBR did score that as a net growth
enhancing investment. It takes time to deliver, though, and that
was something missing from the last few governments. They are
(05:43):
delivering on that, So it's a bit of a mixed bag,
which is why kind of put them and bang in
the middle.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
Basically, I think that's important the point that film's made
about the timing. Time's not on their side with this,
because the policies they need to put in place just
will not yield results immediately. So investing loads more, building bridges,
building school they take time, and the economic benefits accruing
from those things take a long time to come through.
Planning reform as well. It's a really positive thing. If
(06:07):
they're successful in doing it, it will be a positive thing.
But sort of the cloud hanging over it all, as
Phil just said again, is this Nicks rise which happens immediately,
that's happening in April, and it's that balance between this
sort of near term cloud and actually this longer term vision,
which I think they've said a lot of good things
(06:27):
and some of the right things, but time is just
not on their side. So you have this really tricky
balance between and I think that's where the five out
of ten comes from. Between this sort of doing the
right things and waiting for them to read benefits for
the economy. That's a really tricky place to be.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
How much when you were both doing this, did you
think that this is about them wanting to be a
two to you know? Really twenty nine it's the halfway point.
Speaker 3 (06:49):
I think that's a really important point. When I write stuff,
I think what would an investiget from this note that
I've just written, and what would they think? And it's
I'd read it and think maybe twenty twenty nine isn't
it given for them? In terms of if you look
at living standards, if they come to the Electric with
that performance on living standards, maybe twenty twenty nine isn't
they given for them? I think you're right Allegra though,
that this is like a ten year plan for them.
(07:11):
That's how they view it. But if they turn got.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
To get reelected standards, it's all inter linked. And then
if you're tacking to the right, for want of a
better phrase, to try and head off reform slash. Yeah, exactly,
because a lot of those new MPs they've got are
in traditional them there's nothing traditional anymore. But they're doing
(07:34):
a bunch of shape shifting right now in order to
head off that reform threat, if indeed it is a threat,
because obviously there's a lot going on with the reform
party right now. It's just they've got to at that
twenty nine. They've got to keep a large number of
the huge landslide they have right now.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Yeah, they do.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
It's really interesting you're saying sacking to the right, defense spending.
We're going to hear about potentially welfare cuts in the
next week or so. You know, they aren't classic labor
policies at all. One thing I have heard from people
is what do they really stand for? What's the strategy?
Is it supply side reform? Is it classic labor sort
of tax and spend policy, And it feels like it's
a bit of everything at the moment, and there's there's
(08:12):
a real question mark about the sort of overall strategy.
All of that said, you know, I think that's the
score of the five out of ten. I think they've
done some sensible things they're just going to say time
to come through.
Speaker 4 (08:24):
And so that's kind of what the budget felt like
in the autumn, that it was a bit to throw
everything at it and see what sticks. Are they going
to change? I know a lot of it is on regulation.
If you look at financial and planning regulation, will that
be torn up to finally unleash the animal spirits?
Speaker 2 (08:40):
They're talking, well bonfire are the regulations? Yeah, that's certainly
the way they're going. They did always say that they
were going to make us a better regulated country, and
they are pushing ahead with that. I think the planning
reforms we all knew that they were going to they
were going to really try and push through a complete
supply side delivering that. And actually one of our scores
(09:01):
to seven out of ten is the one point five
million homes. It's a stretch target. They're never going to
get to one point five million, but I think they
know that, but they're pushing for that. And they get
one point two that would be a massive success. And
so that would be huge. And what they're doing on
planning just simplifying some of the environmental measures, removing the
right for smaller quangos to interfere in the planning process
(09:22):
CPO with no hope values. If your land is just
a piece of derelic lands, you can't claim it to
have residential value. So there's all sorts of things in
a new Town's commitments. There's all sorts of things in
there which everyone in the policy was says, this is
what needs.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
To be done.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Will they get it through or unchanged with no legislative adjustments,
then that's a big test. But fundamentally what they've done
is so far has been pretty good. So the general
bonfire of regulations is some of it feels a little
bit like they're just desperately trying to claw any kind
of growth measure. They want to send this message that
we are the growth party, and it feels like they're
(09:58):
trying to fix the problems created by the budget where
we had lingering fiscal uncertainty which raises the prospect of
further growth damaging tax rises down the line. They need
to get growth going. Some of these things you would
not have expected, like heat throw you never would have
expected that. And then the financial deregulation they're pushing card
on that and other areas. You can see the idea
(10:19):
behind it.
Speaker 4 (10:20):
I also see a one out of ten.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
There is a one that's terrible, one out of but yes,
employment only gets a one out of ten. That's because
they said this eighty percent employment target, which would require
two million people currently aged between sixteen and sixty four
to be moving into work now effectively to get tricky unemployment. Yeah,
and then the next exactly in the next cut, so
that if you were saying, what policy have they done
(10:44):
to help that, they've done a policy so completely antithetical
to that. They've said, well, there's two things. They've raised
the minimum wage and so you can't pass this cost
down in slower wage growth towards that, and obviously people
just above the minimum wage are also going to have
big increases in there wages to keep the differential going.
And at the same time, you've passed a cost on
(11:04):
to the employers. They can't pass much down through lower wages,
so they've got to do more unemployment. You could just
see economically, that's how it's going to have to go.
So you give them kind of nothing on policy leaders
to increase employment, and not an awful lot on anything else.
The ege percent also is so stretching. Only five countries
in the world have it, and it seems incredibly unlikely
(11:25):
we're going to get there. But if you know, again,
if it's a stretch target and we get to sort
of seventy eight, that we'd all be celebrating.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
I think in business, what do they call them, big
hairy audacious targets? What's those bat hags? We have them
in government all the time, So big hairy audacious goals.
There's a thing, right right, No, it was a Richie
Scenac thing, may even have been a Matt Hancock thing,
which was you have these targets and then if you
fall slightly short, then you've done better. I think they
work in business. I'm not sure they work in politics,
(11:53):
where your opponents can say you felt short. Started this
podcast by saying, you know, I think I get it
in business, I don't get it politics. Do you think
they regret the national insurance increase on employees?
Speaker 2 (12:04):
They figured that they didn't have any choice.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
The reason I'm asking is it does seem to be
the kind of lead weight that's weighing on everything else.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
I think personally, they found this black hole. Yeah, it
was later in July, wasn't it found this black hole?
It feels to me like they could have turned around
and said this is consistent with the Knicks cuts being unaffordable.
Even if they'd done half of it on employee, and
I know you're right, Phil, they would have broken their
manifesto pledge. But they didn't know this black hole existed.
What we're turning around and saying is this employee Nicks
(12:31):
cuts just not not affordable. And then they could have
split it between even if they wanted to do a
bit on employer next, it just wouldn't have been as bad.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
So you've got the two issues, which is the business community.
It feels totally betrayed, very very angry. These taxes are
going to be passed in large part through to prices
and to you know, employ smaller wage rises and higher unemployment.
So there's some damage coming down the line from this.
To repair the public finances, there was always going to
(12:59):
be difficult decision. They tied their hands too much beforehand,
and they left themselves so little fiscal headroom. There's belief
that they were establishing economic stability with this with the
October budget has been proved demonstrably not to be the case,
because they're coming back in six months and they're having
to do welfare cuts, they're having to do public spending
cuts because they just need to re establish them.
Speaker 4 (13:19):
He so Dane, what's the way forward for them?
Speaker 3 (13:22):
There are sort of three elements in this upcoming fiscal
event that we're going to sort of I think they
are worth watching. One is how much is the OBRE
going to change its forecast, because that, I think at
least is a source of some of the concern around
the UK's fiscal position. The optimism in the obr's forecast,
so when investors look at it, they're like, you know what,
you're going to borrow a lot more than the obl
says you're going to borrow it as gross not going
(13:42):
to be as strong. The second thing is obviously how
big of the fiscal hold does that leave and how
much does Rachel Reeve think she needs to repair the
public finances because as Phil's just said, ten billion pounds
in terms of headroom is just peanuts, and we are
now in a much more volatile world than we were
in October, in a much more volatile world, so we
need much more head room. And then three is it's
(14:03):
the policy leaver that you pull, so is it benefits spending?
Do you run the gauntlet on spending cuts again and
do what Jeremy Hunt did and pencil spending cuts in
at the end of the forecast.
Speaker 1 (14:13):
Not many options for them.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
This is the issue that on departmental spending, the plans
are already so tight they can't go further benefits spending year.
There's some stuff you can do there, but it's not
very labor like. And then you've got tax risers, which
they just don't want to talk about. The last one
is more borrowing, but they know what's going to happen
in terms of how the market is going to respond
to that.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
So I do I envy them.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
Used to work in the treasury, didn't you Dad did?
Speaker 3 (14:41):
What would I do? I'd raise taxes?
Speaker 1 (14:44):
Would you have done it in July? Well, in the
last fiscal.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
I say that as a as a sort of yeah, well,
I don't say that as a politician. I say that
as a being just completely analytical about it. And there
are things they can do, like you know, the freezers
on the personal allowances they can continue to put and
that raises them and it people don't feel that in
their pocket right now. It's one of these. It's a
bit like cutting spending in the future. You know, it's
one of these that you just delay the difficult decision,
(15:08):
but actually it feels like taxes are the only thing
that really you can do. The other thing you can do,
of course, is decide to completely change what public service
provision looks like. Think about the NHS, think about not
education or they've chosen on defense, but the NHS in particular.
Does the NHS have to just look different going forward?
There is a huge question around that. But as things stand,
(15:30):
if they're not willing to really change how things look
in the NHS, then it everyone's just going to have
to pay more tax And I know that's not a
particularly positive message, but that's the world we find ourselves in.
And that's not just a UK specific thing either. That's
a European that's a European European question that is hanging
over every government now with what's going on with defense spending.
(15:52):
It's a really tricky situation. But I think the world
has changed dramatically since October and I think it's going
to be really interesting to see how Rachel Reeves perceives
what needs to be done with the UK fiscal policy
to make sure it's able to stand up to this
volatility and shocks.
Speaker 4 (16:10):
Phil, Dan, thank you so much, Thanks very much, no
problem at all. Thanks for listening to this week's In
the City from Bloomberg. This episode was hosted by me
Francis Laqua and Allegra Stratton. It was produced by Sersaudi
and Moses and App with sound design by Blake Maples.
Brendan Francis Newnam is our executive producer. Special thanks to
(16:34):
Phil Aldrich and Dan Hansen. Please subscribe, rate, and review
wherever you listen to podcasts.
Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio News.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Welcome to the City of.
Speaker 3 (00:13):
London, the City of the City of London. Beleave mine
the gap between the and the financial heart of the country.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
The City, the City.
Speaker 1 (00:31):
Welcome to in the City.
Speaker 4 (00:34):
And clear of the doors. Pe Welcome to in the City.
Each week we unpack a story that's crucial to the
world's financial capitals.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
I'm Francis Laqua and I'm Alecra Stratton. What, Fran can
you believe it's only been eight months since the change
of government.
Speaker 4 (00:50):
Back then it felt like a much simpler time for Cures,
Darmer and probably everyone else.
Speaker 1 (00:55):
Back then, public support for Kissed Arma and his party
was higher. The US elect felt like a distant reality,
and with the clear intent to reset relations with businesses,
the Labor Party's promise of tangible improvements to Britain's quality
of life felt achievable.
Speaker 4 (01:10):
So here we are in March, popularity of the government sleeping.
Of course, we have the US President Donald Trump firmly
in office, which brings its own challenges, and those key
election pledges, well, are they on.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Track, Legra well, indeed, So we're going to try and
answer that in the city this week. And to do that,
we've got the team here at Bloomberg who just in
the last few days have published a scorecard on how
the government's doing. And we've got the two brilliant minds
who put it together, Phil Aldrich, Senior UK Economy reporter
and Dan Hansen, UK economist on the Bloomberg Economics team.
(01:44):
So do we want to do methodology or not? Why?
Speaker 4 (01:48):
Why the score a card?
Speaker 1 (01:49):
Why or not not?
Speaker 2 (01:50):
How? We picked five key measures, basically the economic measures
that the Labor government has set itself again. So those
are the ambitions it as this said, it wants to
have the highest growth in the G seven and they've
put a nominal two point five percent and your growth
rate on that. And they also have an additional one,
(02:10):
which was raising living standards by real household disposable income.
Ahead there as an eighty percent employment target. There's a
pledge that we're going to have fiscal stability and economic stability.
They're saying ending austerity and they want to build one
point five million homes. So we just took what their
ambitions were and then we said.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
How they do.
Speaker 4 (02:32):
I mean, eight months is a good timeframe because it's
eight months into a five year fixed term parliament, and
there's a lot going on.
Speaker 3 (02:40):
Obviously, when you say in a five year term, you
might argue it's probably a bit unfair to give them
a mark at the moment. But actually these things, they
are very stretching targets. I think that's the thing first
to sort of pick out with this. Perhaps raising living
standard is in the very stretching target, but two and
a half percent growth year is a very stretching target.
Building that many homes is very stretching targets. Obviously, feel
said about the employment target. These are all very as
(03:03):
I say, stretching things to achieve, and it's important I
think that the government not just held account internally, but
we're here to sort of cast our eye over it
and look at these things. As you've both said at
the top of the show there the world has changed
dramatically now they're going to have to adapt labor as
well as we go forward. But I think at least
the top line of this that we've Phil and I
looked at the sort of living standards piece, I mean,
(03:26):
surely it's every government's goal to raise living standard over
at Parliament, right, and actually when we looked at it,
we think they'll probably do it, but it's not going
to be as convincing as they'd like it to be.
We don't think, at least it.
Speaker 1 (03:36):
Doesn't really matter that it does it if they've got
a numerical increase.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
No. I think it would matter though if they turned
around in twenty twenty nine and said, yes, we've raised
living stands, but it's not as fast as the last government. Okay, yeah,
that was one of the big economic reasons at least
why didn't do particularly well in the elections. So I
think people want to feel richard, don't they. They don't
want to see a number higher. You want to actually.
Speaker 1 (03:59):
Feel better off than you are five years Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 3 (04:02):
Do you feel like there's more money in your pocket?
Speaker 1 (04:04):
And also I was struck at the growth event that
Rachel Reeves did some weeks ago. I think you were there,
phil In is it Seamen's factory where she was asked
what is the metric and she chose to say increase
in living standards.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Yeah, it's effectively a downgrade in their ambitions because no
government since records began in nineteen fifty five has failed
to improve living standards, and so Dan's measure he adjusts
the OBR outlook for productivity to something which is a
bit more in line with the consensus forecasts, and on
that measure, the forecast would suggest that they are going
to have the smallest increase in living standards since nineteen
(04:38):
fifty five, which would be a failure. Basically, if you
delivered the smallest uplift in real let me stand that
that's not something to celebrate, is.
Speaker 4 (04:46):
It, phil I think for boosting growth and living standards
you give them a five out of ten. Yeah, And
this is also because basically you know that you measure
it by a real household disposable income for ahead, Why
is it five out of ten? Why are they not
doing better on metric?
Speaker 2 (05:01):
Because you're starting with just eight months of the five
years having gone. So you've got to look at what
policies they're putting in place and make a judgment on
what they've been able to achieve so far. And so
the outlook is not particularly good if you take that
those measures just mentioned, but what they've done so far
to boost growth. On the downside, one thing they're doing
(05:22):
which doesn't help growth is the Knicks rise, So the
payer all tax, which obviously everyone is saying is damaging
for growth. But on the upside, they've got this longer
term plan to basically invest much more in a public infrastructure,
and the OBR did score that as a net growth
enhancing investment. It takes time to deliver, though, and that
was something missing from the last few governments. They are
(05:43):
delivering on that, So it's a bit of a mixed bag,
which is why kind of put them and bang in
the middle.
Speaker 3 (05:47):
Basically, I think that's important the point that film's made
about the timing. Time's not on their side with this,
because the policies they need to put in place just
will not yield results immediately. So investing loads more, building bridges,
building school they take time, and the economic benefits accruing
from those things take a long time to come through.
Planning reform as well. It's a really positive thing. If
(06:07):
they're successful in doing it, it will be a positive thing.
But sort of the cloud hanging over it all, as
Phil just said again, is this Nicks rise which happens immediately,
that's happening in April, and it's that balance between this
sort of near term cloud and actually this longer term vision,
which I think they've said a lot of good things
(06:27):
and some of the right things, but time is just
not on their side. So you have this really tricky
balance between and I think that's where the five out
of ten comes from. Between this sort of doing the
right things and waiting for them to read benefits for
the economy. That's a really tricky place to be.
Speaker 1 (06:42):
How much when you were both doing this, did you
think that this is about them wanting to be a
two to you know? Really twenty nine it's the halfway point.
Speaker 3 (06:49):
I think that's a really important point. When I write stuff,
I think what would an investiget from this note that
I've just written, and what would they think? And it's
I'd read it and think maybe twenty twenty nine isn't
it given for them? In terms of if you look
at living standards, if they come to the Electric with
that performance on living standards, maybe twenty twenty nine isn't
they given for them? I think you're right Allegra though,
that this is like a ten year plan for them.
(07:11):
That's how they view it. But if they turn got.
Speaker 1 (07:14):
To get reelected standards, it's all inter linked. And then
if you're tacking to the right, for want of a
better phrase, to try and head off reform slash. Yeah, exactly,
because a lot of those new MPs they've got are
in traditional them there's nothing traditional anymore. But they're doing
(07:34):
a bunch of shape shifting right now in order to
head off that reform threat, if indeed it is a threat,
because obviously there's a lot going on with the reform
party right now. It's just they've got to at that
twenty nine. They've got to keep a large number of
the huge landslide they have right now.
Speaker 2 (07:50):
Yeah, they do.
Speaker 3 (07:50):
It's really interesting you're saying sacking to the right, defense spending.
We're going to hear about potentially welfare cuts in the
next week or so. You know, they aren't classic labor
policies at all. One thing I have heard from people
is what do they really stand for? What's the strategy?
Is it supply side reform? Is it classic labor sort
of tax and spend policy, And it feels like it's
a bit of everything at the moment, and there's there's
(08:12):
a real question mark about the sort of overall strategy.
All of that said, you know, I think that's the
score of the five out of ten. I think they've
done some sensible things they're just going to say time
to come through.
Speaker 4 (08:24):
And so that's kind of what the budget felt like
in the autumn, that it was a bit to throw
everything at it and see what sticks. Are they going
to change? I know a lot of it is on regulation.
If you look at financial and planning regulation, will that
be torn up to finally unleash the animal spirits?
Speaker 2 (08:40):
They're talking, well bonfire are the regulations? Yeah, that's certainly
the way they're going. They did always say that they
were going to make us a better regulated country, and
they are pushing ahead with that. I think the planning
reforms we all knew that they were going to they
were going to really try and push through a complete
supply side delivering that. And actually one of our scores
(09:01):
to seven out of ten is the one point five
million homes. It's a stretch target. They're never going to
get to one point five million, but I think they
know that, but they're pushing for that. And they get
one point two that would be a massive success. And
so that would be huge. And what they're doing on
planning just simplifying some of the environmental measures, removing the
right for smaller quangos to interfere in the planning process
(09:22):
CPO with no hope values. If your land is just
a piece of derelic lands, you can't claim it to
have residential value. So there's all sorts of things in
a new Town's commitments. There's all sorts of things in
there which everyone in the policy was says, this is
what needs.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
To be done.
Speaker 2 (09:35):
Will they get it through or unchanged with no legislative adjustments,
then that's a big test. But fundamentally what they've done
is so far has been pretty good. So the general
bonfire of regulations is some of it feels a little
bit like they're just desperately trying to claw any kind
of growth measure. They want to send this message that
we are the growth party, and it feels like they're
(09:58):
trying to fix the problems created by the budget where
we had lingering fiscal uncertainty which raises the prospect of
further growth damaging tax rises down the line. They need
to get growth going. Some of these things you would
not have expected, like heat throw you never would have
expected that. And then the financial deregulation they're pushing card
on that and other areas. You can see the idea
(10:19):
behind it.
Speaker 4 (10:20):
I also see a one out of ten.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
There is a one that's terrible, one out of but yes,
employment only gets a one out of ten. That's because
they said this eighty percent employment target, which would require
two million people currently aged between sixteen and sixty four
to be moving into work now effectively to get tricky unemployment. Yeah,
and then the next exactly in the next cut, so
that if you were saying, what policy have they done
(10:44):
to help that, they've done a policy so completely antithetical
to that. They've said, well, there's two things. They've raised
the minimum wage and so you can't pass this cost
down in slower wage growth towards that, and obviously people
just above the minimum wage are also going to have
big increases in there wages to keep the differential going.
And at the same time, you've passed a cost on
(11:04):
to the employers. They can't pass much down through lower wages,
so they've got to do more unemployment. You could just
see economically, that's how it's going to have to go.
So you give them kind of nothing on policy leaders
to increase employment, and not an awful lot on anything else.
The ege percent also is so stretching. Only five countries
in the world have it, and it seems incredibly unlikely
(11:25):
we're going to get there. But if you know, again,
if it's a stretch target and we get to sort
of seventy eight, that we'd all be celebrating.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
I think in business, what do they call them, big
hairy audacious targets? What's those bat hags? We have them
in government all the time, So big hairy audacious goals.
There's a thing, right right, No, it was a Richie
Scenac thing, may even have been a Matt Hancock thing,
which was you have these targets and then if you
fall slightly short, then you've done better. I think they
work in business. I'm not sure they work in politics,
(11:53):
where your opponents can say you felt short. Started this
podcast by saying, you know, I think I get it
in business, I don't get it politics. Do you think
they regret the national insurance increase on employees?
Speaker 2 (12:04):
They figured that they didn't have any choice.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
The reason I'm asking is it does seem to be
the kind of lead weight that's weighing on everything else.
Speaker 3 (12:11):
I think personally, they found this black hole. Yeah, it
was later in July, wasn't it found this black hole?
It feels to me like they could have turned around
and said this is consistent with the Knicks cuts being unaffordable.
Even if they'd done half of it on employee, and
I know you're right, Phil, they would have broken their
manifesto pledge. But they didn't know this black hole existed.
What we're turning around and saying is this employee Nicks
(12:31):
cuts just not not affordable. And then they could have
split it between even if they wanted to do a
bit on employer next, it just wouldn't have been as bad.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
So you've got the two issues, which is the business community.
It feels totally betrayed, very very angry. These taxes are
going to be passed in large part through to prices
and to you know, employ smaller wage rises and higher unemployment.
So there's some damage coming down the line from this.
To repair the public finances, there was always going to
(12:59):
be difficult decision. They tied their hands too much beforehand,
and they left themselves so little fiscal headroom. There's belief
that they were establishing economic stability with this with the
October budget has been proved demonstrably not to be the case,
because they're coming back in six months and they're having
to do welfare cuts, they're having to do public spending
cuts because they just need to re establish them.
Speaker 4 (13:19):
He so Dane, what's the way forward for them?
Speaker 3 (13:22):
There are sort of three elements in this upcoming fiscal
event that we're going to sort of I think they
are worth watching. One is how much is the OBRE
going to change its forecast, because that, I think at
least is a source of some of the concern around
the UK's fiscal position. The optimism in the obr's forecast,
so when investors look at it, they're like, you know what,
you're going to borrow a lot more than the obl
says you're going to borrow it as gross not going
(13:42):
to be as strong. The second thing is obviously how
big of the fiscal hold does that leave and how
much does Rachel Reeve think she needs to repair the
public finances because as Phil's just said, ten billion pounds
in terms of headroom is just peanuts, and we are
now in a much more volatile world than we were
in October, in a much more volatile world, so we
need much more head room. And then three is it's
(14:03):
the policy leaver that you pull, so is it benefits spending?
Do you run the gauntlet on spending cuts again and
do what Jeremy Hunt did and pencil spending cuts in
at the end of the forecast.
Speaker 1 (14:13):
Not many options for them.
Speaker 3 (14:15):
This is the issue that on departmental spending, the plans
are already so tight they can't go further benefits spending year.
There's some stuff you can do there, but it's not
very labor like. And then you've got tax risers, which
they just don't want to talk about. The last one
is more borrowing, but they know what's going to happen
in terms of how the market is going to respond
to that.
Speaker 2 (14:32):
So I do I envy them.
Speaker 1 (14:36):
Used to work in the treasury, didn't you Dad did?
Speaker 3 (14:41):
What would I do? I'd raise taxes?
Speaker 1 (14:44):
Would you have done it in July? Well, in the
last fiscal.
Speaker 3 (14:47):
I say that as a as a sort of yeah, well,
I don't say that as a politician. I say that
as a being just completely analytical about it. And there
are things they can do, like you know, the freezers
on the personal allowances they can continue to put and
that raises them and it people don't feel that in
their pocket right now. It's one of these. It's a
bit like cutting spending in the future. You know, it's
one of these that you just delay the difficult decision,
(15:08):
but actually it feels like taxes are the only thing
that really you can do. The other thing you can do,
of course, is decide to completely change what public service
provision looks like. Think about the NHS, think about not
education or they've chosen on defense, but the NHS in particular.
Does the NHS have to just look different going forward?
There is a huge question around that. But as things stand,
(15:30):
if they're not willing to really change how things look
in the NHS, then it everyone's just going to have
to pay more tax And I know that's not a
particularly positive message, but that's the world we find ourselves in.
And that's not just a UK specific thing either. That's
a European that's a European European question that is hanging
over every government now with what's going on with defense spending.
(15:52):
It's a really tricky situation. But I think the world
has changed dramatically since October and I think it's going
to be really interesting to see how Rachel Reeves perceives
what needs to be done with the UK fiscal policy
to make sure it's able to stand up to this
volatility and shocks.
Speaker 4 (16:10):
Phil, Dan, thank you so much, Thanks very much, no
problem at all. Thanks for listening to this week's In
the City from Bloomberg. This episode was hosted by me
Francis Laqua and Allegra Stratton. It was produced by Sersaudi
and Moses and App with sound design by Blake Maples.
Brendan Francis Newnam is our executive producer. Special thanks to
(16:34):
Phil Aldrich and Dan Hansen. Please subscribe, rate, and review
wherever you listen to podcasts.
Host
Francine Lacqua
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.