Growth?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 The Labour Government’s stumbling start can be excused by lack of experience, or nativity.  Why on earth announce the perfectly justifiable ending of the universal winter fuel allowance for pensioners as a "one off" so that the hostile media can heap opprobrium on it, rather an mix it in with plenty of other distractions in the budget?  Why allow the purpose of the abolition of inheritance tax on land, to stop a convenient means of tax avoidance the rich, to be obscured by not inserting an "active farmer" clause to show that genuine farmers would be able to keep their farms intact?

 Surely they will hone their perception management skills soon.

 However, Sir Keir Starmer’s "measurable milestone "of "the highest sustained growth in the G7,” announced last December, and Rachel Reeves's somewhat desperate emphasis on growth, growth,  growth . . . in her speech earlier this week show that the Labour Party is aiming to move in a profoundly mistaken direction. 

The relevant literature  is well entrenched.

It is over half a century ago (1972) that the Club of Rome published ""The Limits to Growth" pointing out that the planet's resources were not infinite, and not all the world could continue to grow at the current pace for ever. 

More recently Kate Raworth has illustrated the predicament with the concept of "Do-nut Economics," (2017)  Economies in the empty middle of the ring need to grow to reach the inner part of the do-nut ring in order to enable their citizens to enjoy a minimally decent quality of life.  For those economies on the other edge of the do-nut, further growth will damage the planet and exhaust scarce resources without really improving their people’s quality of life.

My favourite title is Trebeck and Williams’s " The Economics of Arrival." (2019)  We in the developed world have made it. We have arrived.  We are here.  We have not just defeated  "chill penury" but have enough material wealth  for all of us to live exceptionally comfortable and fulfilling lives.  There is no need for further growth: all we need do is share what we have more equitably.

The Financial Times summarises Daniel Susskind's "Growth: a Reckoning" ( 2024) as follows:

"Over the past two centuries, economic growth has freed billions from poverty and made our lives far healthier and longer. As a result, the unfettered pursuit of growth defines economic life around the world. Yet this prosperity has come at an enormous price: deepening inequalities, destabilizing technologies, environmental destruction and climate change."

M/s Reeves claims a high level of economic literacy and experience.  She must know this.   Other members of her team know this.  The Treasury officials know this.  Umpteen MPs of all parties know this.  The freak weather experiences in numerous parts of the world demonstrate that the third sentence of the summary is not fantasy: it is happening.

So, to take one of M/s Reeves's most striking proposals, where does a third runway at Heathrow fit into this scenario?

Where is sustainability in Labour's economic thinking? What I expected from a Labour government, (preferably with an injection of Liberal Democrat input) are active measures for us all to share fully in the prosperity we already have: not make ourselves miserable desperately chasing after a goal which we don’t realise we've already reached.