silverguide.site –

As local and regional elections across the UK loom into view, it is clear the spectre of Trussonomics lives on. The Greens, Reform UK, Your Party, Restore Britain, the Conservatives and even the Liberal Democrats cannot help making extravagant spending promises, often paid for by cutting something or borrowing more that, they argue, will have no negative economic consequences.

Or if they do, the costs will be borne by people and businesses they do not care about.

Only Keir Starmer and his cabinet colleagues seem to be immune to the hysterical demands for the UK government to somehow reconfigure the way the economy operates without any spillovers, unintended consequences or extra costs that nullify the supposed gains derived from the original policy.

Liz Truss promised huge tax cuts worth £45bn paid for with extra borrowing and welfare “efficiencies”. Directed mostly at richer people, the economic argument rested on unleashing an entrepreneurial spirit that would drag Britain out of a long period of low productivity and only incremental gains in average incomes.

Heading into May’s local elections, there are many other magic bullet policies on offer. The Conservatives want to spend big after making savage cuts to welfare benefits. Among the headlines at the last Tory conference was the pledge to drive down the welfare bill by £23bn. “The culture of ‘something for nothing’ must end, now,” said the shadow chancellor, Mel Stride.

The Green party leader, Zack Polanski, has toned down some of the more radical elements of his party’s economic plans, although the agenda remains vague. If we examine what his colleagues proposed in the last election we can see free lunches littering every page.

They proposed to increase taxes by more than £170bn a year by the end of the next parliament – including a £90bn a year tax on carbon emissions – to fund a similar-sized boost to day-to-day public spending. On the spending side of the ledger, they planned to top up the current £160bn capital spending budget by a whopping £90bn a year.

Reform UK has embraced Trussonomics like no other party. Its main general election pledge was to raise the threshold at which people start paying income tax from £12,570 to £20,000, at a cost to the exchequer of more than £40bn a year.

Underlying many of these proposals is a sense that the UK can reverse more than 100 years of decline with a magician’s wand and, more than that, travel alone on this journey without needing to worry about the effect on financial markets or trading partners, and also while the old global order disintegrates.

Donald Trump may be an extreme example of the desire among US citizens to maintain their standard of living inside a protective economic and military shield, yet there are plenty more like the current White House resident, both in the US and in other countries.

In France, Marine Le Pen’s the National Rally trades blows with Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s France Unbowed (LFI) to gain the attention of those who believe economies and societies can be turned on their head in just a few weeks or months. They both touted dramatic policies that claimed to turn the French economic supertanker as if it were a skiff, targeting the rich, big business or immigrants for big savings and extra revenues.

Thankfully, the French electorate rejected gesture politics in last month’s local elections, preferring more centrist candidates. Not across the board, but in some key cities such as Paris and Marseille, it meant centre-left candidates who distanced themselves from both Mélenchon and Le Pen were victorious.

There seemed to be a recognition that the reality of this decade – one characterised by two major wars costing trillions of dollars in lost output, a quantum technological shift and a rapidly changing climate – is that there are no easy answers.

Labour’s route to riches, while staying within strict spending confines, was supposed to be extra economic growth.

Rachel Reeves bet big that a spending splurge early in the parliament would spur the economy later on and at least in time for the next general election, if not the more imminent midterm verdict that is about to be delivered.

However, the damage done by the last government is still underestimated, leaving Labour with a much bigger hole in the public finances than even the £22bn Reeves publicised in her first months in office.

There is still much that Labour could do with the money it has already set aside for investment if only ministers could make some decisions. Procrastination is the disease that infects Whitehall at the moment and Starmer must take a good deal of the blame for that.

Once the government can show it achieves things with public money, it can justify taking more from the better off, knowing it won’t be wasted – at the moment there is only HS2 as a guide to how well ministers spend on new infrastructure.

Yet the overarching theme must be that in an uncertain world, sensible, rational government is preferable to outlandish initiatives that create many outraged losers.

Truss was a disaster and not only because she believed major industrialised economies such as the UK (as opposed to Ireland or Switzerland) can cut taxes as a route to sustainable growth. It was the idea that an escape hatch, or an ejector seat if you prefer, is available that will, Artemis-like, propel the economy to a higher plane.