LONDON — “Back to her old self again” was how one erstwhile colleague described Liz Truss, who made her return to the U.K.’s front pages at the weekend.
That’s exactly what Rishi Sunak and his allies were afraid of.
Truss, who spent 49 turbulent days in No. 10 Downing Street last year, is back. After a respectful period of 13 weeks’ silence, the U.K.’s shortest-serving prime minister exploded back onto the scene with a 4,000-word essay in the Sunday Telegraph complaining that her radical economic agenda was never given a “realistic chance.”
In her first interview since stepping down, broadcast Monday evening, she expanded on this, saying she encountered “system resistance” to her plans as PM and did not get “the level of political support required” to change prevailing attitudes.
While the reception for Truss’s relaunch has not been exactly rapturous — with much of the grumbling coming from within her own party — it still presents a genuine headache for her successor, Sunak, who must now deal with not one but two unruly former prime ministers jostling from the sidelines.
Boris Johnson is also out of a job, but is never far from the headlines. Recent engagements with the U.S. media and high-profile excursions to Kyiv have ensured his strident views on the situation in Ukraine remain well-aired, even as he racks up hundreds of thousands in fees from private speaking engagements around the world.
Wasting no time
Truss and Johnson have, typically, both opted for swifter and more vocal returns to frontline politics than many of their forerunners in the role.
“Most post-war prime ministers have been relatively lucky with their predecessors,” says Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary, University of London. “They have tended to follow the lead of [interwar Conservative PM] Stanley Baldwin, who in 1937 promised: ‘Once I leave, I leave. I am not going to speak to the man on the bridge, and I am not going to spit on the deck.’”
Such an approach has never been universal. Ted Heath, PM from 1970-74, made no secret of his disdain for his successor as Tory leader Margaret Thatcher. Thatcher in turn “behaved appallingly” — in Bale’s words — to John Major, who replaced her in Downing Street in 1990 after she was forced from office.
But more recent Tory PMs have kept a respectful distance.
David Cameron quit parliament entirely after losing the EU referendum in 2016, and waited three years before publishing a memoir — reportedly in order to avoid “rocking the boat” during the ongoing Brexit negotiations.
And while Theresa May became an occasional liberal-centrist thorn in Boris Johnson’s side, she did so only after a series of careful, low-profile contributions in the House of Commons on subjects close to her heart, such as domestic abuse and rail services in her hometown of Maidenhead.
“You might expect to see former prime ministers be a tad more circumspect in the way they re-enter the political debate,” says Paul Harrison, former press secretary to May. “But then she [Truss] wasn’t a conventional prime minister in any sense of the word, so perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that she’s done something very unconventional.”
Truss’s rapid refresh has not met with rave reviews.
Paul Goodman, editor of influential grassroots website ConservativeHome, writes that “rather than concede, move on, and focus on the future, she denies, digs in and reimagines the past,” while Tory MP Richard Graham told Times Radio that Truss’ time in office “was a period that [people] would rather not really remember too clearly.”
One long-serving Conservative MP said “she only had herself to blame for her demise, and we are still clearing up some of the mess.” Another appraised her latest intervention simply with an exploding-head emoji.
Trussites forever
But despite Tory appeals for calm, the refusal of Truss and Johnson to lie low remains a serious worry for the man eventually chosen to lead the party after Truss crashed and burned and Johnson thought better of trying to stage a comeback.
Between them, the two ex-PMs have the ability to highlight two of Sunak’s big weaknesses.
While Truss may never live down the disastrous “mini-budget” of last September which sent the U.K. economy off the rails, her wider policy agenda still has a hold over a number of Conservative MPs who believe they have no hope of winning the election without it.
This was the rationale behind the formation last month of the Conservative Growth Group, a caucus of MPs who will carry the torch for the low-tax, deregulatory approach to government favored by Truss and who continue to complain Sunak has little imagination when it comes to supply-side reforms.
Simon Clarke, who was a Cabinet minister under Truss, insisted “she has thought long and hard” about why her approach failed and “posed important questions” about how the U.K. models economic growth in her Telegraph piece.
Other Conservatives have been advocating a reappraisal of the actions of the Bank of England in the period surrounding the mini-budget, arguing that Truss was unfairly blamed for a collapse in the bond market.
But Harrison doubts whether she may be the best advocate for the causes she represents. “There’s a question about whether it actually best serves her interests in pushing back against a strong prevailing understanding of what happened so soon after leaving office.”
Johnson, meanwhile — to his fans, at least — continues to symbolize the star quality and ballot box appeal which they fear Sunak lacks.
One government aide who has worked with both men said Johnson’s strength lay in his “undeniable charisma” and persuasive power, while Sunak, more prosaically, “was all about hard work.”
These apparent deficiencies feed into a fear among Sunak’s MPs that he is governing too tentatively and, as one ally put it recently, needs to rip off the “cashmere jumper.”
It’s been posited that British prime ministers swing back and forth between “jocks” and “nerds” — and nothing is more likely to underline Sunak’s nerdiness than a pair of recently-deposed jocks refusing to shut up.
Trouble ahead
Unluckily for Sunak, there are at least three big-ticket items coming up which will provide ample ground on which his nemeses can cause trouble.
One is the forthcoming budget — the government’s annual public spending plan, due March 15. Truss and Johnson are unlikely to get personally involved, but Truss loyalists will make a nuisance of themselves if Sunak’s approach is judged to offer the paucity of answers on growth they already fear.
Before that, Truss is expected to make her first public appearance outside the U.K. with a speech on Taiwan which could turn up the heat on Sunak over his approach to relations with China.
One person close to her confirmed China would be “a big thing” for her, and is expected to be a theme of her future parliamentary interventions.
Then there is the small matter of the Northern Ireland protocol, the thorniest unresolved aspect of the Brexit deal with Brussels where tortured negotiations appear to be reaching an endgame.
Sunak has been sitting with a draft version of a technical deal since last week, according to several people with knowledge of the matter, and is now girding his loins for the unenviable task of trying to get a compromise agreement past both his own party and hardline Northern Irish unionists.
A Whitehall official working on the protocol said Johnson “absolutely” had the power to detonate that process, and that “he should never be underestimated as an agent of chaos.”
One option touted by onlookers is for Sunak to attempt to assemble the former prime ministers and ask them to stand behind him on a matter of such huge national and international significance. But as things stand such a get-together is difficult to picture.
At the heart of Johnson and Truss’ actions seems to be an essential disquiet over the explosive manner of their departures.
They appear fated to follow in Thatcher’s footsteps, as Bale puts it — “not caring how much trouble they cause Sunak, because in their view, he should never have taken over from them in the first place.”
LONDON — Public sector workers on strike, the cost-of-living climbing, and a government on the ropes.
“It’s hard to miss the parallels” between the infamous ‘Winter of Discontent’ of 1978-79 and Britain in 2023, says Robert Saunders, historian of modern Britain at Queen Mary, University of London.
Admittedly, the comparison only goes so far. In the 1970s it was a Labour government facing down staunchly socialist trade unions in a wave of strikes affecting everything from food deliveries to grave-digging, while Margaret Thatcher’s Conservatives sat in opposition and awaited their chance.
But a mass walkout fixed for Wednesday could yet mark a staging post in the downward trajectory of Rishi Sunak’s Conservatives, just as it did for Callaghan’s Labour.
Britain is braced for widespread strike action Wednesday, as an estimated 100,000 civil servants from government departments, ports, airports and driving test centers walk out alongside hundreds of thousands of teachers across England and Wales, train drivers from 14 national operators and staff at 150 U.K. universities.
It follows rolling action by train and postal workers, ambulance drivers, paramedics, and nurses in recent months. In a further headache for Sunak, firefighters on Monday night voted to walk out for the first time in two decades.
While each sector has its own reasons for taking action, many of those on strike are united by the common cause of stagnant pay, with inflation still stubbornly high. And that makes it harder for Sunak to pin the blame on the usual suspects within the trade union movement.
Mr Reasonable
Industrial action has in the past been wielded as a political weapon by the Conservative Party, which could count on a significant number of ordinary voters being infuriated by the withdrawal of public services.
Tories have consequently often used strikes as a stick with which to beat their Labour opponents, branding the left-wing party as beholden to its trade union donors.
Sunak has so far attempted to cast himself as Mr Reasonable, stressing that his “door is always open” to workers but warning that the right to strike must be “balanced” with the provision of services. To this end, he is pressing ahead with long-promised legislation to enforce minimum service standards in sectors hit by industrial action.
Sunak has made tackling inflation the raison d’etre of his government, and his backbenchers are reasonably content to rally behind that banner | POOL photo by Oli Scarff/Getty Images
Unions are enraged by the anti-strike legislation, yet Sunak’s soft-ish rhetoric is still in sharp relief to the famously bellicose Thatcher, who pledged during the 1979 strikes that “if someone is confronting our essential liberties … then, by God, I will confront them.”
Sunak’s careful approach is chosen at least in part because the political ground has shifted beneath him since the coronavirus pandemic struck in 2020.
Public sympathy for frontline medical staff, consistently high in the U.K., has been further embedded by the extreme demands placed upon nurses and other hospital staff during the pandemic. And inflation is hitting workers across the economy — not just in the public sector — helping to create a broader reservoir of sympathy for strikers than has often been found in the past.
James Frayne, a former government adviser who co-founded polling consultancy Public First, observes: “Because of the cost-of-living crisis, what you [as prime minister] can’t do, as you might be able to do in the past, is just portray this as being an ideologically-driven strike.”
Starmer’s sleight of hand
At the same time, strikes are not the political headache for the opposition Labour Party they once were.
Thatcher was able to portray Callaghan as weak when he resisted the use of emergency powers against the unions. David Cameron was never happier than when inviting then-Labour leader Ed Miliband to disown his “union paymasters,” particularly during the last mass public sector strike in 2011.
Crucially, trade union votes had played a key role in Miliband’s election as party leader — something the Tories would never let him forget. But when Sunak attempts to reprise Cameron’s refrains against Miliband, few seem convinced.
QMUL’s Saunders argues that the Conservatives are trying to rerun “a 1980s-style campaign” depicting Labour MPs as being in the pocket of the unions. But “I just don’t think this resonates with the public,” he added.
Labour’s current leader, Keir Starmer, has actively sought to weaken the left’s influence in the party, attracting criticism from senior trade unionists. Most eye-catchingly, Starmer sacked one of his own shadow ministers, Sam Tarry, after he defied an order last summer that the Labour front bench should not appear on picket lines.
Starmer has been “given cover,” as one shadow minister put it, by Sunak’s decision to push ahead with the minimum-service legislation. It means Labour MPs can please trade unionists by fighting the new restrictions in parliament — without having to actually stand on the picket line.
So far it seems to be working. Paul Nowak, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, an umbrella group representing millions of U.K. trade unionists, told POLITICO: “Frankly, I’m less concerned about Labour frontbenchers standing up on picket lines for selfies than I am about the stuff that really matters to our union” — namely the government’s intention to “further restrict the right to strike.”
The TUC is planning a day of action against the new legislation on Wednesday, coinciding with the latest wave of strikes.
Sticking to their guns
For now, Sunak’s approach appears to be hitting the right notes with his famously restless pack of Conservative MPs.
Sunak has made tackling inflation the raison d’etre of his government, and his backbenchers are reasonably content to rally behind that banner.
As one Tory MP for an economically-deprived marginal seat put it: “We have to hold our nerve. There’s a strong sense of the corner (just about) being turned on inflation rising, so we need to be as tough as possible … We can’t now enable wage increases that feed inflation.”
Another agreed: “Rishi should hold his ground. My guess is that eventually people will get fed up with the strikers — especially rail workers.”
Furthermore, Public First’s Frayne says his polling has picked up the first signs of an erosion of support for strikes since they kicked off last summer, particularly among working-class voters.
“We’re at the point now where people are feeling like ‘well, I haven’t had a pay rise, and I’m not going to get a pay rise, and can we all just accept that it’s tough for everybody and we’ve got to get on with it,’” he said.
More than half (59 percent) of people back strike action by nurses, according to new research by Public First, while for teachers the figure is 43 percent, postal workers 41 percent and rail workers 36 percent.
‘Everything is broken’
But the broader concern for Sunak’s Conservatives is that, regardless of whatever individual pay deals are eventually hammered out, the wave of strikes could tap into a deeper sense of malaise in the U.K.
Inflation remains high, and the government’s independent forecaster predicted in December that the U.K. will fall into a recession lasting more than a year.
More than half (59 percent) of people back strike action by nurses, according to new research by Public First, while for teachers the figure is 43 percent, postal workers 41 percent and rail workers 36 percent | Joseph Prezioso/AFP via Getty Images
Strikes by ambulance workers only drew more attention to an ongoing crisis in the National Health Service, with patients suffering heart attacks and strokes already facing waits of more than 90 minutes at the end of 2022.
Moving around the country has been made difficult not only by strikes, but by multiple failures by rail providers on key routes.
One long-serving Conservative MP said they feared a sense of fatalism was setting in among the public — “the idea that everything is broken and there’s no point asking this government to fix it.”
A former Cabinet minister said the most pressing issue in their constituency is the state of public services, and strike action signaled political danger for the government. They cautioned that the public are not blaming striking workers, but ministers, for the disruption.
Those at the top of government are aware of the risk of such a narrative taking hold, with the chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, taking aim at “declinism about Britain” in a keynote speech Friday.
Whether the government can do much to change the story, however, is less clear.
Saunders harks back to Callaghan’s example, noting that public sector workers were initially willing to give the Labour government the benefit of the doubt, but that by 1979 the mood had fatally hardened.
This is because strikes are not only about falling living standards, he argues. “It’s also driven by a loss of faith in government that things are going to get better.”
With an election looming next year, Rishi Sunak is running out of time to turn the public mood around.
Annabelle Dickson and Graham Lanktree contributed reporting.
A queue of ambulances outside the Royal London Hospital emergency department on Nov. 24, 2022, in London. In the U.K., the number of “economically inactive” people — those neither working nor looking for a job — between the ages of 16 and 64 rose by more than 630,000 since 2019.
Leon Neal/Getty Images
LONDON — Along with sky-high inflation and energy costs, a Brexit-related trade tailspin and a recession in progress, the U.K. economy is being hammered by record numbers of workers reporting long-term sickness.
The Office for National Statistics reported that between June and August 2022, around 2.5 million people cited long-term sickness as the main reason for economic inactivity, an increase of around half a million since 2019.
The number of “economically inactive” people — those neither working nor looking for a job — between the ages of 16 and 64 has risen by more than 630,000 since 2019. Unlike other major economies, recent U.K. data shows no sign that these lost workers are returning to the labor market, even as inflation and energy costs exert huge pressure on household finances.
The U.K. avoided mass job losses during the Covid-19 pandemic as the government’s furlough program subsidized businesses to retain workers. But since lockdown measures were lifted, the country has seen a labor market exodus of unique proportions among advanced economies.
In its report last month, the ONS said a range of factors could be behind the recent spike, including National Health Service waiting lists that are at record highs, an aging population and the effects of long Covid.
“Younger people have also seen some of the largest relative increases, and some industries such as wholesale and retail are affected to a greater extent than others,” the ONS said.
Though the effects of the issues mentioned above haven’t been quantified, the report suggested the increase has been driven by “other health problems or disabilities,” “mental illness and nervous disorders” and “problems connected with [the] back or neck.”
Jonathan Portes, professor of economics and public policy at King’s College London, told CNBC the scale of the labor market depletion is likely a combination of long Covid; other pandemic-related health issues such as mental illness; and the current crisis in the NHS.
On top of that, he noted that factors that hurt public health directly — such as increased waiting time for treatment — could have a knock-on effect: people may have to leave the workforce to care for sick relatives.
“It’s worth remembering the U.K. has been here before, arguably at least twice. In the early 1990s, the U.K. saw a sharp recovery, with falling unemployment, after ‘Black Wednesday,’ but it also saw a large, and lasting, rise in the number of people claiming incapacity-related benefits,” Portes said, adding that not working is generally bad for both health and employability.
“The government clearly isn’t doing very much about this. Apart from resolving the crisis in the NHS, the other key policy area is support for sick and disabled people to get back to work, and there’s not nearly enough happening on this — instead the government is harassing people on Universal Credit with penalties and sanctions which we know don’t help much.”
In his recent Autumn Statement, Finance Minister Jeremy Hunt announced that the government will ask over 600,000 people receiving Universal Credit — a means-tested social security payment to low income or unemployed households — to meet with a “work coach” in order to establish plans to increase hours and earnings.
Hunt also announced a review of the issues preventing re-entry into the job market and committed £280 million ($340.3 million) to “crack down on benefit fraud and errors” over the next two years.
Although the pandemic has greatly worsened the health crisis leaving a hole in the U.K. economy, the rise in long-term sickness claims actually began in 2019, and economists see several possible reasons why the country has been uniquely vulnerable.
Portes suggested that the government’s austerity policies — a decade of sweeping public spending cuts implemented after Former Prime Minister David Cameron took office in 2010 and aimed at reining in the national debt — had a significant part to play in leaving the U.K. exposed.
“The U.K. was particularly vulnerable because of austerity — NHS waiting lists were rising sharply, and performance/satisfaction was falling sharply, well before the pandemic,” Portes said.
“And support for those on incapacity and disability benefits was hollowed out in the early 2010s. More broadly, austerity has led to a sharper gradient in health outcomes by income/class.”
That’s borne out in the national data: The ONS estimates that between 2018 and 2020, males living in the most deprived areas of England on average live 9.7 years fewer than those in the least deprived areas, with the gap at 7.9 years for females.
The ONS noted that both sexes saw “statistically significant increases in the inequality in life expectancy at birth since 2015 to 2017.”
In the aftermath of the pandemic, NHS waiting lists grew at its fastest rate since records began in August 2007, a recent House of Commons report highlighted, with over 7 million patients on the waiting list for consultant-led hospital treatment in England as of September.
However, the report noted that this isn’t a recent phenomenon, and the waiting list has been growing rapidly since 2012.
“Before the pandemic, in December 2019, the waiting list was over 4.5 million – almost two million higher than it had been in December 2012, a 74% increase,” it said.
“In other words, while the rise in waiting lists has been accelerated by the pandemic, it was also taking place for several years before the pandemic.”
Former Bank of England policymaker Michael Saunders, now a senior policy advisor at Oxford Economics, also told CNBC that the U.K. has been particularly badly affected by Covid in terms of severity, and that some of this may have been the result of the country’s higher rates of preexisting health conditions — such as obesity — which may have been exacerbated by Covid.
“The U.K. is a relatively unequal country, so that may be part of the reason why even if we’ve had the same Covid wave as other countries, we might get a bigger effect on public health, because if you like you have a greater tail of people who would be worst affected by it,” he added.
Saunders suggested that any growth strategy from the government should include measures to address these health-care challenges, which are now inextricable from the labor participation rate and the wider economy.
“It’s not just a health issue, it’s an economic issue. It’s important in both ways. I think it’s important enough as a health issue, but it merits extra importance because of the effects on potential output which then feed through to these other economic problems.”
LONDON — The United Kingdom wants to police the internet. Shame the European Union got there first.
Brexit was supposed to let Britain do things quicker. But less than a month after the 27-member bloc’s Digital Services Act (DSA) went into force, London is still struggling to cobble together its own version of the rulebook, known as the Online Safety Bill.
On Monday it tried again, with Britain’s Digital Secretary Michelle Donelan presenting a tweaked bill to parliament. It got the backing of MPs, but faces fresh committee scrutiny before heading to the House of Lords. And the path to a settled law still looks far from certain.
The bill, which seeks to make Britain “the safest place in the world to be online” has not only been a casualty of the country’s political instability — it has also proved a divisive issue for the country’s governing Conservative Party, where a vocal minority of backbenchers still view it as an unnecessary limit to free speech.
“Far from being world-leading, the government has been beaten to the punch in regulating online spaces by numerous jurisdictions, including Canada, Australia and the EU,” said Lucy Powell, the opposition Labour Party’s shadow digital secretary.
Powell said the latest version of the Online Safety Bill was also at risk of getting stuck due to “chaos in government and vested interests,” adding that it was imperative the bill pass through the legislature by April, when the current parliamentary session ends.
Much of the disagreement over the bill has centered on rules policing so-called legal-but-harmful content. That’s been largely dropped from the latest version of the planned law, after Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s government bowed to pressure from right-wing MPs within his own party, who argued that the provisions threatened free speech.
In the previous iteration of the bill, Ofcom, the country’s telecommunications and media regulator, was on the hook for enforcing rules that required social media giants to take action against potentially harmful but technically legal material like the promotion of self-harm.
The government’s scrapping of legal-but-harmful content hasn’t been universally welcomed, however. Nadine Dorries, Donelan’s predecessor as digital secretary, proposed the provisions and has griped that they’d already passed parliamentary scrutiny before the bill was paused.
Long and winding road
Britain’s attempts to regulate the internet really got going under Theresa May, who became prime minister in the wake of Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, and as lawmakers were beginning to become more tech-skeptic.
The Tories’ May 2017 election manifesto promised that “online rules should reflect those that govern our lives offline,” but by the time Boris Johnson published his 2019 election offering, the Conservatives were also promising to protect the most vulnerable from accessing harmful content. Under Johnson’s close ally Dorries, a version of the legislation tackling legal-but-harmful content started to make its way through Parliament, before it was put on pause after he was ousted by Tory MPs.
Johnson, the former prime minister, often seemed caught between his own personal free speech philosophy and his populist instincts of attacking Big Tech.
The summer Tory leadership contest to replace Johnson reignited the debate, with contenders promising to look again at the law before the legal-but-harmful content provisions were ultimately watered down. Donelan replaced Dorries, becoming the seventh culture secretary since Brexit.
The EU’s path to its online rulebook has been quicker. In part that’s because questions over free speech haven’t yet become the political touchpaper that they now are in the Anglosphere. Nevertheless the EU mostly side-stepped the issue by keeping its own rulebook more squarely aimed at purely illegal content, and the European Commission has made it clear public it does not want to create a so-called “Ministry of Truth.”
That means the EU hasn’t had to contend with the deep divisions the Online Safety Bill has prompted in the U.K., especially among the governing Tories.
Instead, Brussels’ institutions have been mainly aligned on the key aspects of its framework, the DSA. The European Parliament and Council of the EU — representing the 27 European governments — largely supported the European Commission’s cautious approach to create rules to crack down on public-facing content illegal under EU or national laws like child sexual abuse material or terrorist propaganda.
When it comes to legal-but-harmful content, the EU’s approach requires very large online platforms — those with more than 45 million European users — to assess and limit the spread of content like disinformation and cyberbullying under the watch of regulators. Europe’s rules also have gone further than those on the other side of the channel by including mandated risk assessment and audits for tech giants like Meta and Alphabet so that they can be held accountable for potential wrongdoing. In the U.K., the main enforcement has been left to Ofcom via investigations.
Disagreements, when they came in Europe, have been on the edges, rather than at the core of the debate. Rows focused on limits to targeted ads and the level of obligations for online marketplaces like Amazon to carry out random checks on dangerous products on their platforms. In another example, some EU countries like France and Germany pushed and failed to force a 24-hour deadline for online platforms to take down illegal content.
Not just free speech
In the U.K., it’s not just free speech issues that have proved controversial. The EU set out separate rules aiming to clamp down on child sexual abuse material online, but the U.K. poured similar provisions into the Online Safety Bill.
That means high-stakes questions over how and whether the monitoring requirements undermine privacy — especially in encrypted messaging apps like WhatsApp — are being dealt with separately in the EU. But in the U.K. they’ve been thrown into the same mix as wide-ranging free speech debates.
Differences between the rulebooks also raise the prospect of costly regulatory misalignment. While the U.K. bill slaps general monitoring requirements on the tech companies themselves, that’s explicitly banned by the EU. Last month, the British regulator and its Australian counterpart created a new Western coalition of online content regulators, though failed to invite any EU counterparts to those discussions. Only Ireland’s watchdog joined as an observer.
“This is about setting up our international engagement in expectation of setting up our rules,” Melanie Dawes, Ofcom’s chief executive, told POLITICO when announcing that initiative. “The success of this is about bringing together international partners.”
Clothilde Goujard reported from Brussels.
[ad_2]
Vincent Manancourt, Annabelle Dickson, Clothilde Goujard and Mark Scott
LIVERPOOL, England — On the long picket line outside the gates of Liverpool’s Peel Port, rain-soaked dock workers warm themselves with cups of tea as they listen to 1980s pop.
Dozens of buses, cars and trucks honk in solidarity as they pass.
Dockers’ strikes are not new to Liverpool, nor is depravation. But this latest walk-out at Britain’s fourth-largest port is part of something much bigger, a great wave of public and private sector strikes taking place across the U.K. Railways, postal services, law courts and garbage collections are among the many public services grinding to a halt.
The immediate cause of the discontent, as elsewhere, is the rising cost of living. Inflation in the United Kingdom breached the 10 percent mark this year, with wages failing to keep pace.
But the U.K.’s economic woes long predate the current crisis. For more than a decade, Britain has been beset by weak economic growth, anaemic productivity, and stagnant private and public sector investment. Since 2016, its political leadership has been in a state of Brexit-induced flux.
Half a century after U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger looked at the U.K.’s 1970s economic malaise and declared that “Britain is a tragedy,” the United Kingdom is heading to be the sick man of Europe once again.
The immediate cause of Liverpool dockers’ discontent that brought them to strike is the rising cost of living. | Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
Here in Liverpool, the “scars run very deep,” said Paul Turking, a dock worker in his late 30s. British voters, he added, have “been misled” by politicians’ promises to “level up” the country by investing heavily in regional economies. Conservatives “will promise you the world and then pull the carpet out from under your feet,” he complained.
“There’s no middle class no more,” said John Delij, a Peel Port veteran of 15 years. He sees the cost-of-living crisis and economic stagnation whittling away the middle rung of the economic ladder.
“How many billionaires do we have?” Delij asked, wondering how Britain could be the sixth-largest economy in the world with a record number of billionaires when food bank use is 35 percent above its pre-pandemic level. “The workers put money back into the economy,” he said.
What would they do if they were in charge? “Invest in affordable housing,” said Turking. “Housing and jobs.”
Falling behind
The British economy has been struck by particular turbulence over recent weeks. The cost of government borrowing soared in the wake of former PM Liz Truss’ disastrous mini-budget on September 23, with the U.K.’s central bank forced to step in and steady the bond markets.
But while the swift installation of Rishi Sunak, the former chancellor, as prime minister seems to have restored a modicum of calm, the economic backdrop remains bleak. Spending and welfare cuts are coming. Taxes are certain to rise. And the underlying problems cut deep.
U.K. productivity growth since the financial crisis has trailed that of comparator nations such as the U.S., France and Germany. As such, people’s median incomes also lag behind neighboring countries over the same period. Only Russia is forecast to have worse economic growth among the G20 nations in 2023.
In 1976, the U.K. — facing stagflation, a global energy crisis, a current account deficit and labor unrest — had to be bailed out by the International Monetary Fund. It feels far-fetched, but today some are warning it could happen again.
The U.K. is spluttering its way through an illness brought about in part through a series of self-inflicted wounds that have undermined the basic pillars of any economy: confidence and stability.
The political and economic malaise is such that it has prompted unwanted comparisons with countries whose misfortunes Britain once watched amusedly from afar.
“The existential risk to the U.K. … is not that we’re suddenly going to go off an economic cliff, or that the country’s going to descend into civil war or whatever,” said Jonathan Portes, professor of economics at King’s College London. “It’s that we will become like Italy.”
Portes, of course, does not mean a country blessed with good weather and fine food — but an economy hobbled by persistently low growth, caught in a dysfunctional political loop that lurches between “corrupt and incompetent right-wing populists” and “well-intentioned technocrats who can’t actually seem to turn the ship around.”
“That’s not the future that we want in the U.K,” he said.
Reviving the U.K.’s flatlining economy will not happen overnight. As Italy’s experience demonstrates, it’s one thing to diagnose an illness — another to cure it.
Experts speak of an unbalanced model heavily reliant upon Britain’s services sector and beset with low productivity, a result of years of underinvestment and a flexible labor market which delivers low unemployment but often insecure and low-paid work.
“We’re not investing in skills; businesses aren’t investing,” said Xiaowei Xu, senior research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies. “It’s not that surprising that we’re not getting productivity growth.”
But any attempt to address the country’s ailments will require its economic stewards to understand their underlying causes — and those stretch back at least to the first truly global crisis of the 21st century.
Crash and burn
The 2008 financial crisis hammered economies around the world, and the U.K. was no exception. Its economy shrunk by more than 6 percent between the first quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2009. Five years passed before it returned to its pre-recession size.
For Britain, the crisis in fact began in September 2007, a year before the collapse of Lehman Brothers, when wobbles in the U.S. subprime mortgage market sparked a run on the British bank Northern Rock.
The U.K. discovered it was particularly vulnerable to such a shock. Over the second half of the 20th century, its manufacturing base had largely eroded as its services sector expanded, with financial and professional services and real estate among the key drivers. As the Bank of England put it: “The interconnectedness of global finance meant that the U.K. financial system had become dangerously exposed to the fall-out from the U.S. sub-prime mortgage market.”
The crisis was a “big shock to the U.K.’s broad economic model,” said John Springford, from the Centre for European Reform. Productivity took an immediate hit as exports of financial services plunged. It never fully recovered.
“Productivity before the crash was basically, ‘Can we create lots and lots of debt and generate lots and lots of income on the back of this? Can we invent collateralized debt obligations and trade them in vast volumes?’” said James Meadway, director of the Progressive Economy Forum and a former adviser to Labour’s left-wing former shadow chancellor, John McDonnell.
A post-crash clampdown on City practises had an obvious impact.
“This is a major part of the British economy, so if it’s suddenly not performing the way it used to — for good reasons — things overall are going to look a bit shaky,” Meadway added.
The shock did not contain itself to the economy. In a pattern that would be repeated, and accentuated, in the coming years, it sent shuddering waves through the country’s political system, too.
The 2010 election was fought on how to best repair Britain’s broken economy. In 2009, the U.K. had the second-highest budget deficit in the G7, trailing only the U.S., according to the U.K. government’s own fiscal watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).
The Conservative manifesto declared “our economy is overwhelmed by debt,” and promised to close the U.K.’s mounting budget deficit in five years with sharp public sector cuts. The incumbent Labour government responded by pledging to halve the deficit by 2014 with “deeper and tougher” cuts in public spending than the significant reductions overseen by former Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.
The election returned a hung parliament, with the Conservatives entering into a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. The age of austerity was ushered in.
Austerity nation
Defenders of then-Chancellor George Osborne’s austerity program insist it saved Britain from the sort of market-led calamity witnessed this fall, and put the U.K. economy in a condition to weather subsequent global crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the fallout from the war in Ukraine.
“That hard work made policies like furlough and the energy price cap possible,” said Rupert Harrison, one of Osborne’s closest Treasury advisers.
Pointing to the brutal market response to Truss’ freewheeling economic plans, Harrison praised the “wisdom” of the coalition in prioritizing tackling the U.K.’s debt-GDP ratio. “You never know when you will be vulnerable to a loss of credibility,” he noted.
But Osborne’s detractors argue austerity — which saw deep cuts to community services such as libraries and adult social care; courts and prisons services; road maintenance; the police and so much more — also stripped away much of the U.K.’s social fabric, causing lasting and profound economic damage. A recent study claimed austerity was responsible for hundreds of thousands of excess deaths.
Under Osborne’s plan, three-quarters of the fiscal consolidation was to be delivered by spending cuts. With the exception of the National Health Service, schools and aid spending, all government budgets were slashed; public sector pay was frozen; taxes (mainly VAT) rose.
But while the government came close to delivering its fiscal tightening target for 2014-15, “the persistent underperformance of productivity and real GDP over that period meant the deficit remained higher than initially expected,” the OBR said. By his own measure, Osborne had failed, and was forced to push back his deficit-elimination target further. Austerity would have to continue into the second half of the 2010s.
Many economists contend that the fiscal belt-tightening sucked demand out of the economy and worsened Britain’s productivity crisis by stifling investment. “That certainly did hit U.K. growth and did some permanent damage,” said King’s College London’s Portes.
“If that investment isn’t there, other people start to find it less attractive to open businesses,” former Labour aide Meadway added. “If your railways aren’t actually very good … it does add up to a problem for businesses.”
A 2015 study found U.K. productivity, as measured by GDP per hour worked, was now lower than in the rest of the G7 by a whopping 18 percentage points.
“Frankly, nobody knows the whole answer,” Osborne said of Britain’s productivity conundrum in May 2015. “But what I do know is that I’d much rather have the productivity challenge than the challenge of mass unemployment.”
‘Jobs miracle’
Rising employment was indeed a signature achievement of the coalition years. Unemployment dropped below 6 percent across the U.K. by the end of the parliament in 2015, with just Germany and Austria achieving a lower rate of joblessness among the then-28 EU states. Real-term wages, however, took nearly a decade to recover to pre-crisis levels.
Economists like Meadway contend that the rise in employment came with a price, courtesy of Britain’s famously flexible labor market. He points to a Sports Direct warehouse in the East Midlands, where a 2015 Guardian investigation revealed the predominantly immigrant workforce was paid illegally low wages, while the working conditions were such that the facility was nicknamed “the gulag.”
The warehouse, it emerged, was built on a former coal mine, and for Meadway the symbolism neatly charts the U.K.’s move away from traditional heavy industry toward more precarious service sector employment. “It’s not a secure job anymore,” he said. “Once you have a very flexible labor market, the pressure on employers to pay more and the capacity for workers to bargain for more is very much reduced.”
Throughout the period, the Bank of England — the U.K.’s central bank — kept interest rates low and pursued a policy of quantitative easing. “That tends to distort what happens in the economy,” argued Meadway. QE, he said, is a “good [way of] getting money into the hands of people who already have quite a lot” and “doesn’t do much for people who depend on wage income.”
Meanwhile — whether necessary or not — the U.K.’s austerity policies undoubtedly worsened a decades-long trend of underinvestment in skills and research and development (Britain lags only Italy in the G7 on R&D spending). At British schools, there was a 9 percent real terms fall in per-pupil spending between 2009 and 2019, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ Xu. “As countries get richer, usually you start spending more on education,” Xu noted.
Two senior ministers in the coalition government — David Gauke, who served in the Treasury throughout Osborne’s tenure, and ex-Lib Dem Business Secretary Vince Cable — have both accepted that the government might have focused more on higher taxation and less on cuts to public spending. But both also insisted the U.K had ultimately been correct to prioritize putting its public finances on a sounder footing.
It was February 2018 before Britain finally achieved Osborne’s goal of eliminating the deficit on its day-to-day budget.
Austerity was coming to an end, at last. But Osborne had already left the Treasury, 18 months earlier — swept away along with Cameron in the wake of a seismic national uprising.
***
David Cameron had won the 2015 election outright, despite — or perhaps because of — the stringent spending cuts his coalition government had overseen, more of which had been pledged in his 2015 manifesto. Also promised, of course, was a public vote on Britain’s EU membership.
The reasons for the leave vote that followed were many and complex — but few doubt that years of underinvestment in poorer parts of the U.K. were among them.
Regardless, the 2016 EU referendum triggered a period of political acrimony and turbulence not seen in Westminster for generations. With no pre-agreed model of what Brexit should actually entail, the U.K.’s future relationship with the EU became the subject of heated and protracted debate. After years of wrangling, Britain finally left the bloc at the end of January 2020, severing ties in a more profound way than many had envisaged.
While the twin crises of COVID and Ukraine have muddled the picture, most economists agree Brexit has already had a significant impact on the U.K. economy. The size of Britain’s trade flows relative to GDP has fallen further than other G7 countries, business investment growth trails the likes of Japan, South Korea and Italy, and the OBR has stuck by its March 2020 prediction that Brexit would reduce productivity and U.K. GDP by 4 percent.
Perhaps more significantly, Brexit has ushered in a period of political instability. As prime ministers come and go (the U.K. is now on its fifth since 2016), economic programs get neglected, or overturned. Overseas investors look on with trepidation.
“The evidence that the referendum outcome, and the kind of uncertainty and change in policy that it created, have led to low investment and low growth in the U.K. is fairly compelling,” said professor Stephen Millard, deputy director at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
Beyond the instability, the broader impact of the vote to leave remains contentious.
Portes argued — as many Remain supporters also do — that much harm was done by the decision to leave the EU’s single market. “It’s the facts, not the uncertainty that in my view is responsible for most of the damage,” he said.
Brexit supporters dismiss such claims.
“It’s difficult statistically to find much significant effect of Brexit on anything,” said professor Patrick Minford, founder member of Economists for Brexit. “There’s so much else going on, so much volatility.”
Minford, an economist favored by ex-PM Truss, acknowledged that “Brexit is disruptive in the short run, so it’s perfectly possible that you would get some short-run disruption.” But he added: “It was a long-term policy decision.”
Where next?
Plenty of economists can rattle off possible solutions, although actually delivering them has thus far evaded Britain’s political class. “It’s increasing investment, having more of a focus on the long-term, it’s having economic strategies that you set out and actually commit to over time,” says the IFS’ Xu. “As far as possible, it’s creating more certainty over economic policy.”
But in seeking to bring stability after the brief but chaotic Truss era, new U.K. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt has signaled a fresh period of austerity is on the way to plug the latest hole in the nation’s finances. Leveling Up Secretary Michael Gove told Times Radio that while, ideally, you wouldn’t want to reduce long-term capital investments, he was sure some spending on big projects “will be cut.”
This could be bad news for many of the U.K.’s long-awaited infrastructure schemes such as the HS2 high-speed rail line, which has been in the works for almost 15 years and already faces a familiar mix of local resistance, vested interests, and a sclerotic planning system.
“We have a real problem in the sense that the only way to really durably raise productivity growth for this country is for investments to pick up,” said Springford, from the Centre for European Reform. “And the headwinds to that are quite significant.”
For dock workers at Liverpool’s Peel Port, the prospect of a fresh round of austerity amid a cost-of-living crisis is too much to bear. “Workers all over this country need to stand up for themselves and join a union,” insisted Delij.
For him, it’s all about priorities — and the arguments still echo back to the great crash of 15 years ago. “They bailed the bankers out in 2007,” he said, “and can’t bail hungry people out now.”
LONDON — Observers of Britain’s governing structure can be forgiven for scratching their heads in recent weeks as they watch the country reel through a succession of prime ministers without holding an election. While the opposition Labour Party is demanding an election, the governing conservatives are pushing on with choosing another prime minister from within their own ranks, which they have the right to do because of the way Britain’s parliamentary democracy works.
BRITONS NEVER ACTUALLY VOTE FOR THEIR PRIME MINISTER
Britain is divided into 650 local constituencies, and people tick a box for the representative they want to become their local member of parliament, or MP. In most cases, this will be a member of one of the country’s major political parties.
The party that wins the majority of seats gets to form a government, and that party’s leader automatically becomes prime minister. While coalitions are possible, Britain’s voting system favors the two largest parties and in most cases a single party will take an absolute majority of seats, as is the case for the Conservatives in the current Parliament.
HOW DO THE PARTIES CHOOSE THEIR LEADERS?
Since 1922, all of Britain’s 20 prime ministers have come from either the Labour Party or the Conservative Party. This means the members of these parties have an outsized influence on who will be the country’s prime minister. The processes the parties use to choose them can appear Byzantine.
Deep breath: For the Conservative Party, their lawmakers must first signal their support for a potential leader. If there is enough support, this person will become an official candidate. All Conservative MPs then cast a series of votes, gradually whittling down the number of candidates to two. Finally, the party’s ordinary members — around 180,000 of them — vote between these two candidates. Last time they chose Liz Truss over Rishi Sunak.
If the MPs are able to unite behind a single candidate then there is no need for the wider party members to have a vote. This last happened in 2016 when the lawmakers backed Theresa May after the resignation of David Cameron and she automatically became prime minister. This could happen again.
The Labour Party has its own process that is, arguably, even more complicated.
BUT DIDN’T BRITAIN VOTE FOR BORIS JOHNSON IN 2019?
Johnson was selected by his party following the resignation of Theresa May. He had already been prime minister for five months when electors ticked their ballot cards in December 2019. However, voters’ support for the Conservative Party did cement his position as prime minister.
Even in that election, though, it was only actually around 70,000 people who got the chance to vote directly for or against Johnson — those who happened to live in his Parliamentary constituency of South Ruislip and Uxbridge, in west London.
Since then, another prime minister, Liz Truss, has come and gone, and one more will be in place by the end of next week — all without anyone troubling the general electorate.
WILL THERE BE A GENERAL ELECTION SOON?
Constitutionally, no general election is required in Britain for two more years. But as the prime ministers come and go, selected by a tiny proportion of the population, a lot of Britons are beginning to wonder why they are not getting a chance to influence who is their next leader. The clamor for a general election in the near future is only likely to get louder.
LONDON — It is a British cliché that a week is a long time in politics. Liz Truss proved it true on Thursday when she became the shortest-serving British prime minister in history. In a matter of days, her U-turn on economic plans that made global markets jittery and the resignations of key ministers prompted calls from within Truss’ party for her to step down. But the shakeup at the top is hardly an outlier in the recent history of Britain’s Conservatives, whose latest troubles have been years in the making.
DAVID CAMERON’S DECISION
Some observers date the current leadership crisis to Conservative Party infighting over the role of the European Union during Cameron’s 2010-2016 tenure Britain’s leader. The pro-EU prime minister decided to resolve the debate by calling for a nationwide referendum on Britain’s membership in the bloc. With almost 52% voting to leave and 48% to remain, the 2016 referendum resulted in a divisive Brexit. It also led Cameron to resign.
MAY’S BREXIT MANDATE
Theresa May succeeded Cameron as Conservative leader and prime minister on a mandate to “deliver Brexit.” She remained in the job for three years and 11 days, by which time the U.K.’s departure from the Europe Union was still pending. The House of Commons three times rejected the withdrawal agreement May’s government negotiated with the EU. It was a tumultuous time mired in frustration in Brussels and discord in Westminster. Following a string of Brexit-related resignations from her government and under pressure from within her party, May ended up resigning.
BORIS JOHNSON’S TURN
In July 2019, Leave campaigner Boris Johnson became Britain’s third prime minister in just over three years. Johnson made Brexit finally happen in January 2020 after four years of international squabbling. The emergence of the coronavirus pandemic weeks later threw the U.K. off course again. Johnson’s was accused of moving too slowly to limit travel, create an effective test-and-trace program and to project vulnerable older people. Though Johnson won praise for a swift rollout of a nationwide vaccination program, the tight restrictions on businesses, public events and private gatherings the government ultimately imposed would lay the groundwork for the end of his tenure.
WHOSE PARTY IS THIS?
Photos and witness accounts emerged indicating Johnson and government officials broke their own COVID-19 rules on social gatherings during the pandemic. In April of this year, Johnson received a fixed penalty notice for attending one such gathering. He was the first sitting U.K. prime minister to be punished for breaking the law. The scandal, dubbed “partygate” by the British press, triggered a wave of disgust across Britain, especially among those who were not permitted to attend the funerals of loved ones who died during the pandemic. Though Johnson survived a no-confidence vote over that, revelations in July that he appointed a deputy chief whip accused of misconduct led to a wave of ministerial resignations. It cost Johnson his job. He announced his resignation on July 7.
TRUSS MAKES HISTORY
Johnson ally and former Foreign Secretary Liz Truss swept past former Treasury chief Rishi Sunak in September to become Britain’s third female prime minister – and the last leader to meet with Queen Elizabeth II. However, Truss is likely to be remembered for her brevity. After resigning Thursday, she holds the record as the shortest-serving leader in modern British history, clocking up a mere 44 days in office. Her demise was swift. The pound plummeted after the announcement of her mini-budget, which included billions in unfunded tax cuts. To stymie the damage, Truss made U-turns on major tax policies and replaced her Treasury chief. But the resignation Wednesday of Home Secretary Suella Braverman, who left with pointed criticism of her boss, unleashed a torrent of Tory calls for Truss to resign, too.
———
AP journalist Thomas Adamson in Paris contributed to this story.
———
Follow AP’s coverage of British politics at https://apnews.com/hub/british-politics
LONDON — It was a revolution 11 long years in the making.
For a small but vocal band of right-wing libertarians, Liz Truss’ appointment as U.K. prime minister on September 6 seemed the triumphant end point of an epic and improbable march that led them from the fringes of British politics to Whitehall’s grandest corridors of power.
In the course of just over a decade, a group of little-known politicians, fringe think tanks and outspoken media figures had helped drag the Tory Party, and the nation it led, from David Cameron’s vision of so-called compassionate Conservatism — hugging huskies and all — to a Brexit-backing, free-market embracing, low-tax juggernaut.
It took them four Tory prime ministers, four general elections and an era-defining referendum to do it — but with Truss in charge, they were finally living their dream. The country was to be remade in their image.
It lasted 44 chaotic days, and no more.
“They felt their moment had come at last,” said Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University London. “This would prove that Brexit hadn’t been a ghastly mistake, but a fantastic opportunity. But of course, as it was always based on fantasy, it was always bound to collide with reality.”
Truss was elected Conservative leader — and so U.K. prime minister — last month on the votes of just 81,000 party members, a group large enough to defeat her more centrist opponent, Rishi Sunak, but still small enough to fit comfortably inside Wembley stadium, home of the England football team.
This band of true-blue believers had been wooed by her heady promises of a low-tax, low-regulation state that would embrace the opportunities provided by Brexit.
But as soon as PM Truss started to put her promises into action — via a ‘mini-budget’ on September 23 which included tens of billions of pounds in unfunded tax cuts alongside a massive energy subsidy scheme — the markets began sliding into turmoil. Within days it was clear Truss had triggered an economic crisis — and one that sent the Conservative poll ratings tumbling along with the value of the pound.
Her MPs, facing electoral oblivion, were terrified.
In the weeks that followed, Truss was forced to sack her Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng and U-turn on most of their economic program in a desperate bid to stabilize the markets. This week her home secretary, Suella Braverman, followed Kwarteng out the door. Her MPs became mutinous, some publicly demanding her head. Support rapidly drained away.
Truss was forced to sack her Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng and U-turn on most of their economic program in a desperate bid to stabilize the markets | Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images
Truss’ disastrous six weeks in power were an abject humiliation for the prime minister herself, of course — but also for the libertarian right of the Conservative movement that had fought its corner for years.
Winners and losers
“I’m pretty distraught about it,” said Mark Littlewood, director general of the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA), one of the right-wing Westminster think tanks that inspired the Truss agenda. (He, like most of the interviewees for this article, was speaking after the abandonment of Truss’ economic program earlier this week, but before she finally resigned Thursday afternoon.)
“It did actually appear as if we had a new government that, in very broad terms, shared the IEA analysis of the problems with our economy, and it not being market-oriented enough.”
But Truss botched the “political execution” rather than economic thinking, Littlewood insisted, lamenting that “if the execution goes badly wrong, it has a rebound effect on the ideas.”
Indeed, Conservative libertarians explain the Truss debacle in various ways: She was not clear enough about what she was doing and the reasons for it; she made the announcements in the wrong sequence; she refused to match her tax cuts with spending restraint; and she failed to produce independent proof that her plans would work. There is certainly little sign of remorse.
“The position we’re in now is that these reforms basically have not been tried,” Littlewood insisted. “Her attempts to implement change were too hurried; too rushed; not thought through; naïve in some regard.”
Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage was another right-wing libertarian who had been advocating for low-tax, small-state ideals for decades.
“I think the hope was that the Kwarteng budget was going to mark a very significant moment,” Farage said. “That now appears to be dead. And I would have thought dead for a very, very long time. The people in the Conservative Party that I talk to, who think on my wavelength … have pretty much given up.”
But Tories opposed to the libertarian agenda are delighted at its failure — if not the disastrous fallout, for country and party alike. “The mild flirtation with Tea Party libertarianism has been strangled at birth, and I think for the general good fortune of the Tory Party that has to be seen as a good thing,” Tory backbencher Simon Hoare told the BBC.
One serving Cabinet minister added: “[The libertarians] are going to have to adjust to reality like the rest of us. They can’t buck the market.”
Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage was another right-wing libertarian who had been advocating for low-tax, small-state ideals for decades | Peter Summers/Getty Images
Nicky Morgan, a former Cabinet minister who previously co-chaired the centrist ‘One Nation’ caucus of Tory MPs, said her party must now return to its former broad-church approach.
“The task for the ‘One Nation’ wing of the party is almost to ignore the libertarian right and get on with reasserting one-nation politics, and prove to everyone from Liz Truss downward that if we want to stay in power, then being sane and sensible in the middle ground is a much stronger place to be,” she said.
The long march
For some on the conservative right, so-called Trussonomics was the inevitable end point of a march toward deregulation that began with the Brexit movement in the early 2010s. Farage was one of a number of Brexiteer thinkers who wanted the U.K. to leave the EU in a bid to drive up business competitiveness.
Bale said the libertarian strain in the Conservative Party had in fact been present for decades, but that the Brexit cause emboldened it and brought it to the fore.
The turning point came in 2011, when a number of right-wing Conservative MPs — many of them newly-elected the previous year — rebelled against then-Prime Minister David Cameron and voted in support of a referendum on EU membership. “That was the first time they realized their strength,” Bale said.
Across the country, anti-EU sentiment was rising, fueled by the eurozone crisis and soaring levels of immigration.
“There was a ‘push me, pull you’ going on,” Farage said. “The stronger UKIP got, the more emboldened the Tory Brexiteers got. 2011 was the moment when UKIP suddenly started coming second in by-elections. This group in the Tory Party, and this group outside the Tory Party — namely my group — always had very similar policy goals.”
Cameron was spooked, and the pressure from within and without his party forced him to agree a referendum on Britain’s EU membership. It was won by the Leave-supporting side in 2016, cheered on by a highly vocal section of the right-wing U.K. press which also supports low taxes and deregulation.
“The referendum allowed them all to coalesce around a single issue,” said David Yelland, a former editor of the Rupert Murdoch-owned, Brexit-backing Sun newspaper, who now speaks out against the influence of right-wing media.
“The right of the Conservative Party and their supporters in the media and the think tank world knew they had one go at this. They had to win Brexit, otherwise they were finished. And they did. And since then that has emboldened them.”
Keep pushing on
With Cameron forced from office, the group’s next battle was with his successor Theresa May, a euroskeptic Remainer who tried to negotiate a less drastic form of Brexit which would have left Britain tied to many of Brussels’ rules and regulations.
Farage said the “loose relationship” between pro-Brexit libertarians inside and outside the Tory Party maintained its hold over the new Tory leader, ultimately blocking her proposed Brexit deal in Parliament and forcing her resignation.
Theresa May was a euroskeptic Remainer who tried to negotiate a less drastic form of Brexit | WPA pool photo by Henry Nicholls/Getty Images
Boris Johnson then emerged as the next prime minister, a genuine ‘Vote Leave’ campaigner who was able to push through the hard-nosed form of Brexit the group had dreamed of. But his personal brand of domestic politics was less to their taste — a sort of high-spending boosterism which appealed to millions of Tory and pro-Brexit voters, if not to the libertarian right.
“The core Brexiteers were not ultra-libertarians,” explained former Tory MP Stewart Jackson, who lost his job as a ministerial bag carrier to vote with the pro-Brexit rebels in 2011.
“There were a few that wanted [London to become] Singapore-on-Thames … but the bulk of Brexiteer MPs and definitely Brexiteer voters were much more what I would call communitarian.”
But Jackson said the vacuum of ideas about how best to respond to Brexit, even among many Brexiteers, left space for the libertarians to fill. “They were the only game in town in terms of a new intellectual concept that the U.K. could consolidate on, being outside the European Union,” he said.
With Johnson’s departure in July following a series of personal scandals, the likes of Littlewood — as well as his brothers in arms at neighboring think tanks the Taxpayers Alliance and the Adam Smith Institute — found themselves in the ascendance.
Their ideas found favor with Truss — who despite not being a Brexiteer at the referendum, was a follower of the libertarian cause — and her Chancellor-to-be Kwarteng. The ambitious pair were among colleagues who wrote a now infamous 2012 pamphlet named “Britannia Unchained” offering radical right-wing solutions to Britain’s economic problems.
Less than two months after Johnson’s departure, their economic prospectus was finally put to the test — and exploded on impact.
The arc of history
As Truss and Kwarteng look back at the ashes of their brief Downing Street careers, the pro-Brexit right is licking its wounds and wondering where it goes next.
Shanker Singham, another libertarian thinker who is close to Truss and the IEA, insisted it was too soon to tell whether the low-tax, ultra-competition agenda is too damaged by the Trussonomics experiment to resurface in the near future.
Brexit supporters march in Fulham in the final leg of the March To Leave Rally on March 29, 2019 | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
“It’s a very febrile atmosphere, and things have to settle down,” he said. “There’s a big arc of history here, and Liz Truss’ mini-budget does not suddenly transform the arc of history.”
Littlewood insists there will be another chance to implement libertarian policies in less than a decade, given the structural economic problems Britain faces.
“Had this [mini-budget] gone as smoothly as I had imagined it in my dreams, rather than as badly as it has gone in my living nightmare, I think we could have got quite a lot of this done now,” he said. “Unfortunately, a large amount of it is off the table now, but I think it will have to be returned to.”
Brexiteers of a different persuasion — of which there are many — are hoping for an urgent change of direction, however.
“The vision of Brexit as ‘Davos on Thames’, only ever held by 10 percent of the Conservative electorate, is dead,” wrote Matthew Goodwin, an academic who has charted the rise of the populist right. “The only way forward for the Conservative Party now is to get back to what Brexit was really about for the 90 percent, and to reconnect with their 2019 electorate.”
But Bale, of Queen Mary University, believes the libertarian strain among Conservatives will forever lurk just beneath the surface, insisting their radical solutions to the nation’s ills have still not been properly tried.
“When the spaceship doesn’t arrive,” he said, “the cultists simply say ‘we got the date wrong’, and that it will be coming in two years’ time.”
Additional reporting by Annabelle Dickson.
Discover the London Playbook newsletter
What’s driving the day in Westminster. Politics and policymaking in the UK capital.
