Do we ever learn?

The supposedly 'soft left' Tribune Group has produced an agenda for a new prime minister which includes taking responsibility for economic growth away from the Treasury and the OBR to a new department..

This has been tried before in the shape of the Department of Economic Affairs created by the Wilson Government in 1964.  Admittedly this was partly to find a berth for the mercurial George Brown and to set up 'creative tension' with Jim Callaghan as Chancellor.

Brown eventually became foreign secretary and then left government altogether.  In the meantime, the Treasury asserted its authority as it was dealing with the short term, leaving the DEA to come up with hopelessly optimistic long term plans.

I arrived at the DEA in 1969 as a civil service intern and morale was incredibly low with civil servants desperately trying to find something worthwhile to do.   A huge computer printout of economic forecasts arrived and no one knew what to do with it.

The Treasury is unpopular because someone has to say no to spending requests when taxation and debt service costs are at record levels.

The sad fact is that expectations of what government can provide are out of kilter with economic reality and reviving the DEA will solve nothing.

The Andy Burnham illusion

My local Labour MP Matt Western belongs to the sensible tendency in the Labour Party.   He writes today: 'My view on the future is that Keir retains my support. He has made an error and apologised for it. I desperately do not want to see our party dominated by infighting and manoeuvres on who will take over. We all saw it in the Tory party and how poorly it presented to the public. We must remain focused on what matters: delivery."

In relation to delivery, I noticed in a vox pop yesterday that a new Reform voter said that Labour had done nothing in two years.   Yet two pieces of legislation alone have been controversial and have far reaching impacts: employment rights and renters' rights.

I heard an Andy Burnham supporter say on the radio that he is more popular with the electorate than other party leaders and not tainted by association with recent 'failures',   But would he remain as popular if he took on the challenging role of prime minister in such dark times?

Remember, remember Patrick Gordon Walker,  Ax shadow foreign secretary, he lost his seat at Smethick in the 1964 general election after an admittedly nasty campaign.  The Labour MP for Leyton was persuaded to stand down and Walker lost the subsequent by-election, large numbers of Labour voters staying at home.

It is said that the NEC may now not block Burnham from standing in a by-election in Merseyside or Lancashire.  But is there now such a thing as 'safe' Labour seat in the north-west?   It could all end in ears for the power hungry opportunist and political chameleon.  

Getting rid of Starmer may not suit the right

The Sunday Times has been a leader of the media pack hunting Keir Starmer, but they had a 'wait a minute' moment at the end of their editorial yesterday as they realised that Starmer might be replaced by someone to the left who would be more harmful to the wealthy interests they seek to defend.

I have never really understood why Starmer is so unpopular, but I suppose that reflects my disconnect with the people I live among.

Given the dangerous international situation, which Starmer has handled rather well, the last thing we need now as a country is the psychodrama of a leadership contest.  Starmer would not go without a fight, but even if he was re-elected, his authority would be in tatters.

As a Labour Party member, I don't find any of the options very appealing:

• Wes Streeting, competent, but too Blairite even for me
• Angela Rayner, emotionally intelligent, but would find the role challenging
• Andy Burnham, least unpopular with voters and most likely to win in the autumn, in my view a power hungry opportunist.
• Ed Miliband, popular with Labour members, I have sat next to him at dinner and found him likeable, but voters see him as weird.   Could become Chancellor.
• Yvette Cooper, never mentioned, probably seen as not assertive enough and it's all Balls.

The spectre of Conform

Unconfirmed press reports suggest that Nigel Farage is open to some kind of agreement with the Conservatives after the next general election.   It is certainly possible that Reform could be the largest party but without a majority.   My hunch is that this could be a 1974 scenario with a second election following.

It need not be, and probably would not be a formal coalition, more a confidence and supply agreement as Theresa May had with the Democratic Unionists.

Living in Warwickshire, I have seen the spectacle of the Reform Party and its 19-year old leader being propped up by the Conservatives.   The make up of the authority is complex, in part because of defections and one suspension (of a Green councillor).

However, when a no confidence motion was introduced to unseat the leader, he survived by one vote as the Conservatives sat on their hands apart from one brave soul who was then suspended for three months (subject to an appeal).

I have seen the future and it doesn't work.   Unfortunately, a lot of voters have said 'we've tried the Conservatives and Labour and they don't work, so why not give Reform a try?'  I could give plenty of reasons.

The Liberal Democrats seem to be mainly in the minds of voters in terms of Ed Davey's stunts, the man in the wet suit.  They would claim to have distinctive policies, but the overall narrative is less clear and discontent appears to be growing (although they are well dug in if one looks at some localities, especially at local government level).

Lord Robert Skidelsky

I was saddened to hear of the passing of my former colleague Professor Lord Robert Skidelsky of Tilton Manor. I only met one of his three children but my condolences are extended to them and his wife.

Excellent obituaries have appeared in The Times, The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph and that from the Social Market Foundation is particularly informative in terms of his intellectual history.   May I also commend the tribute by Warwick Economics Department including remarks by Professor Marcus Miller: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/news/2026/4/reflections_on_the_life_and_work_of_emeritus_professor_lord_skidelsky/

Robert's early career was marred by controversy over what was seen as too sympathetic a biography of Oswald Mosley.   Inviting Mosley to high table at Nuffield College did not go down well.

Robert joined the Department of International Studies at Warwick in 1976.   Towards the end of the 1980s the University decided that International Studies should be merged with the larger Politics department where I became chair in 1990.   I learnt of this decision when I was in New Zealand.

Robert decided he would be more at home in Economics.   As I recall, not everyone in Economics was happy about this with some members of the department already unhappy that I was co-teaching courses for them, although they found me to be quite a useful external member for their appointing panels.  They eventually conceded that I was literate in Economics and I continued to teach on Economics coded m modules until my final retirement in 2015.   I developed good working relationships with a number of economists such as the late Nick Crafts and Mark Harrison.

Eventually I found myself teaching the third year Making of Economic Policy module with Robert.  He was the most erudite and widely read person I had ever encountered and he treated me and the students with real courtesy.   There was no doubting is intellectual superiority, but there was no condescension on his part.

I read all three volumes of his Keynes biography and I thought that they were brilliant exercises in historical political economy, a view shared by Bill Clinton.   When he came to Warwick to give the last speech of his presidency he sought out Robert for a conversation.

Robert once said that he was too weak to be a leader and too strong to be a follower.   Politically he moved from the Social Democrats to the Conservatives where he was briefly Treasury spokesman in the Lords.  During this period he often had to rush out of the class to deal with faxes.   Sacked by Bill Hague for his views on Kosovo, he ended up as a cross-bencher which suited him better.

I did sometimes pull Robert's leg.   He had taken a lease from a local aristo on Keynes's old home at Tilton (you can see it from the upper floors of the nearby Charleston).  He was trying to raise funds to refurbish an outbuilding Keynes had used, but a condition for any heritage money was that he opened to the public.  I suggested that he could install a large scale model of the Phillips curve in the garden for children to play on.

I was also economical with the actualité on one occasion.   Robert had spent millennium night at some aristocratic country house and asked me where I had been.   My reply was a marina on Southampton Harbour which was true except that I was on the quay not some luxury boat.

It was a privilege to have known him as an intellectual and a person.

Back to the 1970s

I don't have a high opinion of the domestic governing record of the SNP (think ferries and drugs), but their latest election gimmick has all the hallmarks of the daft ideas department.

They are proposing price caps on staple grocery items.   However, if retailers can't make a margin on these items, they may simply stop stocking them.   Getting supplies to remote highlands and islands locations is already a challenge (Lidl are popular on Orkney because they adhere to 'one Scotland price' despite the additional transport costs).

Of course, what they are really hoping for is a confrontation on this issue with Westminster to boost their campaign for a new independence referendum.

Most people have probably forgotten the 'red triangle' scheme devised by Shirley Williams as Labour prices secretary in the 1970s.  This attempted to control key grocery prices.   I have copied extensive records from the National Archives about it, but have never found the time to write it up.

It all bordered on farce with one 'Sir Humphrey' reporting on how the scheme was going down in Blackheath!   (A relatively prosperous London suburb much favoured by bureaucrats).

Why will no party criticise the triple lock?

As a former Labour defence secretary and adviser Lord Robertson has delivered a torpedo to the Labour government.  I have seen it suggested on social media that he is an adviser to two US defence companies, but I have been unable to verify this.

Defence spending was hollowed out under 14 years of Conservative prime ministers.   There were also arguably some poor spending decisions: two aircraft carriers that are sitting ducks without adequate destroyer protection and new destroyers that seem to spend most of their time in port having problems fixed.

Nevertheless the defence budget does seem to be £28 billion short of required spending over the next few years.  The Conservatives would pay for this by cutting welfare or making poor people poorer.

Yet no party will contemplate getting rid of the unsustainable triple lock because they know that older people are far more likely to vote than younger people.   It should be noted that pensions are defined as a benefit under the 1946 National Insurance Act.

Around that time one Labour politician said 'there ain't no fund' (possibly Ernie Bevin).   Pensions have to  be paid out of current taxation, a burden that will increase despite controversial age adjustments.

Yes, state pensions are lower in the UK than in many European countries, but private provision is much higher.  The state pension is an important safety net, but it should be focused on the most needy.

BTW, I think the latest attempt by the media to sack Starmer is not going to succeed.