Jonathan Portes

Stabilisation under Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves restored basic economic credibility but failed to redirect the UK’s long-term trajectory after years of weak productivity, reduced openness and underinvestment. Andy Burnham inherits a stable yet constrained economy alongside a political opportunity to pursue transformative reforms. Achieving growth requires genuine fiscal and institutional devolution, comprehensive tax reform, a closer relationship with the EU single market and a coherent immigration strategy aligned with economic needs. Universities exemplify the damage caused by neglect despite their economic importance. Burnham’s challenge is to convert credibility into ambition, recognising that growth, fairness and openness are interdependent and that excessive caution carries increasing costs.

Government claims of large-scale AI investment are revealed to rely on repackaged or uncertain commitments, illustrating a broader political tendency to inflate numbers for short-term impact. Weak scrutiny, limited subject expertise and a media focus on headline figures reinforce this dynamic, undermining realistic expectations of policy outcomes and eroding public trust. The reliance on announcements distracts from the long-term structural work required to improve the UK’s economic environment, with both current and past governments criticised for perpetuating this cycle.

Evaluates Kate Pickett’s The Good Society as an ambitious but superficial survey of progressive social policies that fails to resolve the tension between declining inequality and worsening social outcomes in the UK. Notes that the book relies heavily on examples from Nordic social democracies and tends to oversimplify complex issues. Finds Pickett’s work on Universal Basic Income more substantial but still overstated. Concludes that her call for evidence‑based policymaking and citizens’ juries feels disconnected from current political realities and offers little optimism for meaningful change.

Data from HMRC and the ONS contradict the government’s claims that recent immigration is dominated by low-skilled, low-paid workers, instead showing migrants have higher employment rates and earnings. The white paper’s proposals mix minor improvements with self‑defeating measures such as taxing international student fees, extending settlement times for lower‑paid migrants and creating preferential treatment for high‑income workers. These policies risk undermining integration, damaging key sectors and shifting the UK toward an unstable guest‑worker model while failing to address genuine economic issues.

Contributors assess the UK spring statement under Rachel Reeves, criticising increases in defence spending alongside welfare and aid cuts while economic forecasts remain weak. Several argue that disabled people and the poorest will bear disproportionate costs, that green investment has been sidelined, and that opportunities for taxing wealth have been ignored. Others point to structural issues with fiscal rules, risks to public services, and damage to civil service reform efforts. Cuts to international aid are viewed as undermining both humanitarian goals and national security, with calls for more balanced long‑term policies and greater investment in sustainable growth.

Trump’s economic agenda blends tariff-driven nationalism, techno-libertarian ambitions and the use of state power to reward allies, creating deep ideological contradictions. The mix of tax cuts for the wealthy, restrictive immigration policies, deregulation and proposals such as a strategic crypto reserve pose risks to fiscal stability and financial markets. Despite internal tensions, political fear and incentives have so far preserved unity among Republican actors, but the unsustainable fiscal outlook and weakened regulatory landscape make a crisis likely to destabilize the coalition.

UK government borrowing costs have risen sharply due to global economic trends, particularly developments in the US, limiting fiscal flexibility for Rachel Reeves. The increase constrains an already difficult spending review and pressures rules on current spending discipline. The recommended response prioritizes maintaining the existing fiscal strategy, avoiding short‑term tax rises or spending cuts, and focusing on long‑term structural issues such as ageing‑related expenditures and public sector productivity. Effective delivery of reforms, especially in the NHS, and prioritizing economic growth through planning and industrial strategy are presented as essential to restoring fiscal stability. Holding steady, rather than panicking, is positioned as key to avoiding another prolonged period of stagnation.

The article argues that Conservative governments consistently failed on immigration policy due to unrealistic targets, economic misunderstandings and abrupt policy shifts. It outlines how numerical caps ignored economic realities, harmed sectors reliant on migrant labour and created unintended consequences across care, education and services. It emphasises the need for long‑term economic thinking, proper evaluation of migration outcomes and a coherent narrative that acknowledges migration’s benefits while maintaining public confidence.

The upcoming budget presents an opportunity to break a cycle of low growth, strained public services, and declining political trust. Significant tax increases are expected, but simplifying the tax system could limit economic damage. Replacing fiscal rules with a transparent, independent process would strengthen long‑term credibility. Investment in children, skills and social programmes, including reversing the two‑child benefit cap, is framed as essential for future growth. Improving NHS and justice system productivity requires targeted management investment rather than headline spending alone. Rebalancing property taxation and devolving fiscal powers could enhance fairness. Although ambitious reforms may be politically risky, the moment offers a rare chance to set out a long‑term agenda for change.

Thomas Piketty’s latest work argues that inequality results from political choices rather than natural economic forces, emphasizing the roles of history, policy, and collective mobilisation. The review highlights his rejection of the idea that market economies inherently produce large disparities and presents examples such as Sweden’s egalitarian shift and the rise of inequality in the US. While Piketty advocates progressive taxation and expanded public ownership, the reviewer notes weaknesses in his proposals, including limited discussion of the tech sector. The book concludes with a call for broader social science engagement on wealth and power distribution.

Argues that high immigration to the UK is economically necessary and inevitable, driven by demographic pressures rather than policy alone. Claims restrictive or temporary migration systems lead to irregularity and exploitation, and instead calls for a managed, regulated approach that embraces the UK’s attractiveness to migrants. Emphasizes the need for renewed integration efforts, including language support, faster refugee resettlement, and limits on segregation in schools to strengthen a multi‑ethnic democracy.

Reeves’s claim of discovering unfunded liabilities is politically strategic but supported by evidence that the previous government left significant fiscal gaps. The new chancellor faces unavoidable tax increases and spending decisions but must avoid repeating austerity-era cuts, particularly to public investment. Reforming fiscal rules, raising and restructuring taxes, and funding long-term programmes in social care, infrastructure and poverty reduction are presented as essential steps to repair the UK's economic foundations.

Argues that the UK faces deep structural economic and social problems and that Labour must make rapid, concrete policy changes to restore public trust, improve living standards and increase investment. Highlights Torsten Bell’s case for radical incrementalism, combining immediate policy shifts such as ending the two‑child benefit cap with longer‑term reforms in planning, taxation and worker protections. Warns that mission-driven government risks delay without tangible early action and stresses that Labour’s credibility depends on delivering swift improvements across key areas including poverty reduction, public services and employment conditions.

The Office for Budget Responsibility has become a central force shaping UK fiscal policy, embedding a framework that makes major tax or spending changes difficult by quantifying costs while leaving long‑term benefits uncounted. Cuts such as those to Sure Start were treated as savings despite later evidence showing net benefits, while migration restrictions are shown to worsen fiscal balances. Although the OBR’s independence is valued, its reliance on Treasury spending assumptions and the political incentives created by fiscal rules distort policymaking. Both major parties pledge to uphold the current framework, leaving significant structural constraints on addressing long‑term underinvestment.

International students are not displacing UK applicants but sustaining university finances strained by years of government-driven underfunding and declining real tuition fees. Their higher fees help offset losses on domestic teaching and research, preventing significant contraction in the sector. Growth in international enrolments is concentrated at the postgraduate level, and foundation courses with lower entry requirements serve both international and disadvantaged domestic students. Claims that graduate visas lead to widespread low-wage work are not supported by available evidence, and graduates contribute economically during their two-year stay. The core issue is a structurally unsustainable funding model that increasingly depends on international fee income, a symptom of broader policy neglect rather than its cause.

Panelists argue that the tax cuts in the autumn statement are unlikely to revive Conservative electoral prospects amid declining living standards and long-term economic stagnation. While the national insurance reduction provides a headline giveaway, contributors contend that public services remain underfunded and growth prospects weak. Critics describe the measures as mistargeted, insufficient, or harmful, particularly for disabled people impacted by benefit reforms. Others note the lack of a coherent Conservative narrative and warn that inconsistent tax positions undermine credibility. Across perspectives, the statement is seen as constrained, politically risky, and inadequate to shift public judgment ahead of the next election.

Peter Foster’s book is praised for clearly explaining the practical damage Brexit has inflicted on UK businesses and for exposing the false claims that leaving the single market would reduce bureaucracy. The review argues that while Foster documents the economic harms well, his analysis lacks deeper consideration of austerity’s role in shaping the political climate that led to Brexit. Foster’s proposals for modest improvements to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement are acknowledged but seen as limited without broader political change. The book’s conclusions align with Keir Starmer’s cautious approach, offering a realistic, incremental strategy rather than a path back to the single market.

Record-high UK net migration figures reflect successful implementation of the post-Brexit immigration system, which has expanded skilled worker inflows into health, social care, and high‑skill sectors while reducing lower‑paid EU migration. Increased numbers of international students and refugees entering through legal routes are contributing positively to GDP and easing labour shortages. Despite ongoing wage issues in sectors such as hospitality and structural problems in social care and higher education, the article argues that the new system is broadly effective and requires minimal further intervention, with broader economic and labour issues lying outside immigration policy.

England’s 1989 water privatisation is portrayed as a deliberate undervaluation that shifted wealth to shareholders while leaving taxpayers and consumers worse off. Political pressure for a successful sale prevented proper pricing and weakened future regulation, enabling private investors to extract high dividends while accumulating debt. Attempts to justify the model through competition for capital are described as politically rather than economically driven. A proposed alternative would treat water operators as public‑service contractors competing for operating rights. The current system of low risk and high private profit is deemed unsustainable.

Brexit is assessed against four tests covering economic performance, fairness, openness and control. Economic outcomes show lower growth, weak investment and reduced trade, with no major benefits identified. Fairness metrics such as wage inequality and regional disparity have not improved. Openness has declined in trade but increased in migration, with non‑EU arrivals offsetting reduced EU migration. Control has largely increased in legal terms, though the Northern Ireland protocol remains unresolved and executive power has expanded. Overall, Brexit has not improved economic performance or fairness, while outcomes for migration and governance are mixed.