Latest / Merryn Talks Money / How to Make Britain Prosperous Again with Sam Bowman

Transcript

How to Make Britain Prosperous Again with Sam Bowman · Merryn Talks Money

0:03
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News.
0:16
Speaker 2: Welcome to Meren Talks Money, the podcast in which people
0:19
Speaker 2: who know the markets explain the markets. I'm Meren zum
0:21
Speaker 2: zat Web. This week we're looking at why Britain has stagnated.
0:24
Speaker 2: I don't think anyone's going to argue that Britain has
0:26
Speaker 2: not stagnated. It has definitely been stagnating. But what can
0:30
Speaker 2: we do to trigger or indeed to catalyze future growth
0:33
Speaker 2: to change where we are. My guest this week is
0:36
Speaker 2: Sam Bowman. Sam as the founding editor of the online
0:39
Speaker 2: magazine Works in Progress, now part of payment processing platform Stripe.
0:43
Speaker 2: He has been Director of Competition Policy at the International
0:46
Speaker 2: Center for Law and Economics and an executive director of
0:48
Speaker 2: the Adam Smith Institute. Now we have specifically asked Sam
0:53
Speaker 2: on as a result of an essay that he co
0:56
Speaker 2: authored called Foundations why Britain has Stagnated. There we go
0:59
Speaker 2: that word again, which looks at the main problems that
1:03
Speaker 2: are plaguing us, how we can fix them, whether it
1:05
Speaker 2: is possible to fix those problems, and of course that
1:08
Speaker 2: is the defining task of our generation and indeed of
1:12
Speaker 2: this new government. So we are hoping that Sam will
1:15
Speaker 2: be able to diagnose the UK's problems and tell us
1:17
Speaker 2: how to fix them in a hurry. Welcome Sam, Thanks
1:20
Speaker 2: for having me. Well, it's a great pleasure. You know,
1:23
Speaker 2: we spend a lot of time on this podcast worrying
1:25
Speaker 2: about productivity, worrying about infrastructure, worrying about housing, and in particular,
1:30
Speaker 2: of course, worrying about the miserable real wages in the UK,
1:34
Speaker 2: because we firmly believe on this podcast that money can
1:37
Speaker 2: indeed buy you happiness. Now, I just wanted to set
1:41
Speaker 2: the scene, which you do at the beginning of your essay,
1:43
Speaker 2: and I imagine that an awful lot of our listeners
1:47
Speaker 2: will have read this essay already, but for those that
1:49
Speaker 2: have not, you've got a wonderful not necessarily diagnosis, but
1:54
Speaker 2: description of the problem at the beginning. So I'm just
1:57
Speaker 2: going to read a few bits of that so that
2:00
Speaker 2: our listeners can get a sense of what it is
2:02
Speaker 2: we're trying to talk about here. Okay, Ready, between twenty
2:06
Speaker 2: twenty four and twenty twenty one, that's before Russa's invasion
2:10
Speaker 2: of Ukraine, the industrial price of energy in the UK
2:13
Speaker 2: tripled in nominal terms. We have significantly more expensive electricity
2:18
Speaker 2: than many similar economies with almost identical population sizes. The
2:22
Speaker 2: UK's under thirty million homes, France has thirty seven million.
2:26
Speaker 2: And then there is this thing that I always find
2:28
Speaker 2: really interesting. We complain a lot about second homes in
2:30
Speaker 2: the UK ren but only eight hundred thousand British families
2:33
Speaker 2: have second homes three point four million French families do.
2:37
Speaker 2: If the world was a better place, our coastline would
2:39
Speaker 2: be plastered, literally plastered with second homes. Then everybody would
2:43
Speaker 2: have their own summer house. Back to Electricity pert Capital,
2:47
Speaker 2: electricity generation in the UK is just two thirds of
2:49
Speaker 2: what it is in France. Our electricity generation is closer
2:53
Speaker 2: to developing companies such as Brazil and South Africa, home
2:56
Speaker 2: of the regular blackouts. Britain's last nuclear power plant, and
2:59
Speaker 2: this is really important and I want to talk about
3:01
Speaker 2: this a lot of time. I'm a great fan of
3:03
Speaker 2: the idea of let's go all in on the nukes.
3:05
Speaker 2: Our last nuclear pad plant was built between nineteen eighty
3:09
Speaker 2: seven and nineteen ninety five. The next one, Hinckley Point C,
3:13
Speaker 2: is between four and six times more costly per megaworking
3:16
Speaker 2: capacity than South Korean nuclear pals. We've talked about this
3:19
Speaker 2: and that on this podcast before. It's ridiculous. Tramp projects
3:23
Speaker 2: in the UK two and a half times more expensive
3:24
Speaker 2: than French projects on a per mile basis. Now I
3:27
Speaker 2: know all about this because I live next to the
3:29
Speaker 2: tram line in Edinburgh. I have watched the cost of
3:34
Speaker 2: building that kind of infrastructure in the UK in real time.
3:37
Speaker 2: And by the way, trams to new Haven. If you
3:39
Speaker 2: are listening, please, with the love of God, come and
3:41
Speaker 2: pick up the rest of the rubbish. It's not finished yet.
3:44
Speaker 2: I'm going to stop there because if I keep reading
3:46
Speaker 2: for all these lists, I'm going to get myself terribly upset.
3:49
Speaker 2: So here we are. We have this this problem, and
3:52
Speaker 2: as you say, they're not disconnected observations. They highlight our
3:57
Speaker 2: real problem. What you diagnos is our real problem. We
4:00
Speaker 2: can't build anything. And now I'm going to hand in
4:02
Speaker 2: for you. Is it really that simple? We can't build
4:04
Speaker 2: anything and that's destroying our economy.
4:07
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think it is that simple. We point to
4:10
Speaker 3: France as an example of a country that on first glance,
4:14
Speaker 3: gets everything wrong. You know, we all know France has
4:17
Speaker 3: incredibly high taxes, it has incredibly high regulation, to the
4:21
Speaker 3: point where there's a cliff edge. If you look at
4:24
Speaker 3: the size of French companies, French companies are lots with
4:28
Speaker 3: forty nine employees, and then there's a huge collapse in
4:31
Speaker 3: the number of French companies that have fifty employees, either
4:35
Speaker 3: because companies just aren't refusing to grow because so many
4:38
Speaker 3: regulations kick in at that point, or because they're effectively
4:41
Speaker 3: committing fraud and under reporting the number of employees they have,
4:45
Speaker 3: both of which are pretty bad. We know that the
4:47
Speaker 3: French public hates any attempt to liberalize its economy. There
4:51
Speaker 3: have been riots over raising the retirement age to sixty four.
4:54
Speaker 3: I mean, imagine if we were talking about raising the
4:57
Speaker 3: retirement age to sixty four in the UK. So, according
5:01
Speaker 3: to all those kinds of metrics, and I think almost
5:04
Speaker 3: anybody would agree, will hold back an economy, France should
5:08
Speaker 3: be doing incredibly badly. But actually France is doing roughly
5:12
Speaker 3: as well as we are. By some measures, they're doing
5:14
Speaker 3: better than us. I think it's reasonable to say they're
5:16
Speaker 3: doing about as well as we are. And the reason
5:19
Speaker 3: we think that is is that even though they get
5:21
Speaker 3: those things wrong tax regulation things like that, they get
5:25
Speaker 3: the basics right. So the footprint of Paris has tripled
5:30
Speaker 3: since the Second World War, whereas London has basically not
5:32
Speaker 3: grown at all. As you mentioned, they build many, many
5:35
Speaker 3: more homes. They have far more homes per person than
5:38
Speaker 3: we do with about the same population size. They build
5:41
Speaker 3: things like tramways much more cheaply than we do. They
5:44
Speaker 3: build much much more high speed rail, much more cheaply
5:47
Speaker 3: than we do, and all of those things are related.
5:49
Speaker 3: There there's I think big, big misunderstanding or kind of
5:53
Speaker 3: gap in the UK between costs and what you actually get.
5:57
Speaker 3: So we always talk about, oh, well, you know, we
5:59
Speaker 3: should build Hinckley Point C, which I agree with, we
6:02
Speaker 3: should build HS two, which I don't agree with, we
6:05
Speaker 3: should build crossrail, but never really recognize that the very
6:09
Speaker 3: very high costs of those projects mean that we really
6:13
Speaker 3: don't get to build more than one. If we get
6:15
Speaker 3: that one at all, we should be in a situation
6:17
Speaker 3: where we're able to build things like crossrail and other
6:20
Speaker 3: metros much more cheaply at the price that for example,
6:24
Speaker 3: Madrid built its metro which was less than a quarter
6:27
Speaker 3: of the price of crossrail, so that we can have
6:29
Speaker 3: more of them.
6:30
Speaker 2: So when we.
6:31
Speaker 3: Talk about the cost of nuclear power, we're not just
6:34
Speaker 3: complaining that we have to pay high prices for it,
6:37
Speaker 3: we're complaining that we don't get enough of it, and
6:39
Speaker 3: so we don't have anything like the kind of energy
6:41
Speaker 3: abundance that we want, and all of this adds up
6:44
Speaker 3: to a massive shortfall investment. So the real origin of
6:49
Speaker 3: writing this paper was a frustration in the run up
6:53
Speaker 3: to and after the election that many commentators were kind
6:57
Speaker 3: of finally beginning to catch up with people like new Marin,
7:00
Speaker 3: people like me who've been talking about the UK under
7:02
Speaker 3: investing for years. But the main conversation sort of thinks
7:07
Speaker 3: of investment as this sort of abstract number, as investment
7:11
Speaker 3: as measured by how many pounds we're putting into some
7:13
Speaker 3: accounts somewhere or spending, when really what we care about
7:16
Speaker 3: with investment is what we're getting out of it. How
7:19
Speaker 3: many nuclear power plants are we getting, how many miles
7:21
Speaker 3: of railway, how many miles of tramline, how many miles
7:23
Speaker 3: of road, how many houses are we getting. And so
7:26
Speaker 3: the fundamental point that we're making is that we underinvest
7:29
Speaker 3: both in terms of costs are so high that it
7:32
Speaker 3: wouldn't be economic to put much more money in than
7:35
Speaker 3: we do and for the money we do put in,
7:37
Speaker 3: we get much less out the stuff that we really
7:40
Speaker 3: care about than we should and changing that is really
7:44
Speaker 3: in our hands. Very very little of this is a
7:46
Speaker 3: technological problem. It's almost all a political problem. And yes,
7:51
Speaker 3: politics can be very difficult to fix, but politics should
7:55
Speaker 3: be eminently fixable. And the fundamental argument that we make
7:59
Speaker 3: is that the UK could be a much more prosperous
8:01
Speaker 3: country without any change in technology, without any real change
8:06
Speaker 3: in the constituency of the economy. We just need to
8:08
Speaker 3: make it much easier to build the dances.
8:10
Speaker 2: Let's go back then and talk about the reasons why
8:15
Speaker 2: everything costs so much more. Here I mean again, as
8:18
Speaker 2: I say, watching the Edinburgh tram in real time and
8:21
Speaker 2: watching the costs go up and up and up, and
8:23
Speaker 2: comparing the cost per milder tramp projects elsewhere was a
8:26
Speaker 2: genuine shoka. Genuine shoka. When you run through the list,
8:30
Speaker 2: what of the reasons why the cost is so high?
8:33
Speaker 2: What are the main ones?
8:34
Speaker 3: The three big things that I would point to are
8:39
Speaker 3: number one the planning system. Some people have read the
8:43
Speaker 3: paper as just being about the planning system, which isn't true,
8:47
Speaker 3: but it's understandable that some people would interpret it that
8:49
Speaker 3: way because the planning system that we have is a
8:52
Speaker 3: relic of the Athlete government. You know, it's a relic
8:55
Speaker 3: of post war socialism in the same way that the
8:57
Speaker 3: NHS is, and I think it's similarly dysfunctional, dysfunctional in
9:00
Speaker 3: a much more invisible way. So after the Second World War,
9:04
Speaker 3: the Athleague government nationalized huge amounts of the economy, including
9:08
Speaker 3: the way we use land, and it went from a
9:12
Speaker 3: system where even the local council did have the power
9:15
Speaker 3: to stop people from building things on their land. They
9:18
Speaker 3: had to compensate you if they stopped you from building something,
9:21
Speaker 3: so they had an incentive not to just block everything.
9:24
Speaker 3: They could block things, but they would have to bear
9:27
Speaker 3: some of the cost of blocking, and that meant that
9:30
Speaker 3: pre the Second World War we had a much more
9:32
Speaker 3: balanced system that allowed lots of things to be built.
9:35
Speaker 3: And the nineteen thirties I think really should be famous
9:39
Speaker 3: for being the most impressive decade of housebuilding that we
9:43
Speaker 3: have ever had, almost entirely private house building.
9:46
Speaker 2: And nice houses too, crucially, really nice houses. Really anyone
9:50
Speaker 2: would want to live in a thirty's house lovely.
9:53
Speaker 3: They're brilliant and much larger than houses that have been
9:55
Speaker 3: built after the Second World War very affordable, often with
9:59
Speaker 3: a lot of gardens. There was a huge, huge shift
10:04
Speaker 3: in the British economy towards building nice, affordable family homes
10:09
Speaker 3: in the nineteen thirties. It actually is one of the
10:11
Speaker 3: reasons that we were able to avoid the worst effects
10:15
Speaker 3: of the Great Depression, the global Great Depression, and one
10:17
Speaker 3: of the reasons that we were able to rearm to
10:20
Speaker 3: fight the Germans in the Second World War. It was
10:22
Speaker 3: really as important as that. And if we were building
10:25
Speaker 3: at the same rate today that we built in the
10:27
Speaker 3: nineteen thirties, if you adjust for population, we'd be building
10:30
Speaker 3: more than half a million homes a year. I mean,
10:32
Speaker 3: we talk at the moment as if three hundred thousand
10:34
Speaker 3: homes a year is really ambitious, and you know, if
10:36
Speaker 3: we're really, really lucky, we might be able to get
10:38
Speaker 3: three hundred thousand homes a year. I mean, that's chicken
10:40
Speaker 3: feet compared to what we should be building and what
10:43
Speaker 3: we have been building as a proportion of the economy
10:46
Speaker 3: in the past. So shifting to the Atli government, what
10:50
Speaker 3: I would argue is a socialist land use planning system
10:53
Speaker 3: was really disastrous and you can see the number of
10:56
Speaker 3: houses being built by the private sector collapse after that happens,
11:00
Speaker 3: And what also happens is that where homes are built
11:04
Speaker 3: becomes much less driven by market signals and prices and
11:08
Speaker 3: much more driven by effectively central planning. And that's left
11:12
Speaker 3: us with a situation where we don't build enough houses
11:14
Speaker 3: every year, and the houses we do build are often
11:17
Speaker 3: not anywhere near where people actually want them to be built,
11:20
Speaker 3: and the consequence of that is that people can't move
11:24
Speaker 3: to where good jobs are. So housing is not just
11:27
Speaker 3: a problem of bills. It's not just a problem of
11:31
Speaker 3: us having to spend more of our money on rents
11:32
Speaker 3: and mortgages than we'd like to. It's also, and I
11:35
Speaker 3: would say much more importantly, a problem of what jobs
11:39
Speaker 3: people can do and where.
11:40
Speaker 2: And one of the things you say about that, let's
11:41
Speaker 2: won't go back quickly. One of the things you say
11:43
Speaker 2: about that is a major problem in London being the
11:45
Speaker 2: lack of a middle income group. Only the very rich
11:48
Speaker 2: and the very poor eleven social housing can afford to
11:50
Speaker 2: live in London, which means that you know, if you're
11:52
Speaker 2: a young or quite young person, you should, under normal circumstances,
11:56
Speaker 2: be drawn to the city to enter productive work you want.
12:01
Speaker 3: Yeah, I mean during the during the Industrial Revolution, towns
12:05
Speaker 3: of ten thousand people grew by more than ten times
12:09
Speaker 3: in less than a century. I mean some towns, some
12:12
Speaker 3: cities that we now think of as being great cities
12:14
Speaker 3: like Sheffield went from being almost nothing at the beginning
12:17
Speaker 3: of the Industrial Revolution to centers of world commerce and
12:21
Speaker 3: world industry by the end of the nineteenth century. We
12:24
Speaker 3: haven't had anything like that kind of ability to move
12:27
Speaker 3: around and to migrate internally according to economic changes and
12:32
Speaker 3: changes in economic reality, and I think that's one of
12:35
Speaker 3: the really big reasons that we have been held back
12:39
Speaker 3: in our ability to grow. And you're absolutely right. You know,
12:41
Speaker 3: there are some places in London inner London boroughs that
12:45
Speaker 3: have thirty to forty percent of the housing being assigned
12:50
Speaker 3: to social housing, and that means that a lot of
12:54
Speaker 3: the most valuable, most central housing stock is occupied by
12:58
Speaker 3: people who are often not in work at all. If
13:00
Speaker 3: they are in work, they're often in fairly low productivity jobs,
13:04
Speaker 3: and they're occupying homes that could be occupied by people
13:08
Speaker 3: who could be far more economically productive and grow and
13:12
Speaker 3: drive economic growth much more. The result, as you've mentioned,
13:18
Speaker 3: is this kind of missing middle where if you want
13:20
Speaker 3: to live in kind of inner London, by which I
13:24
Speaker 3: mean sort of zones three, two and one, you either
13:27
Speaker 3: have to be very rich or very poor. Nobody in
13:31
Speaker 3: the middle can really afford to live in central London
13:34
Speaker 3: because they can't get into social housing and they cannot
13:36
Speaker 3: afford private housing. I think that's a disaster. I think
13:39
Speaker 3: socially and economically that's a disaster. And what's so frustrating
13:44
Speaker 3: about it is that fixing that problem is really really simple.
13:50
Speaker 3: London is one of the least dense major cities in
13:52
Speaker 3: Western Europe. The nicest parts of London, places like Bloomsbury Belgravia,
13:58
Speaker 3: are the densest part of London. You know, density doesn't
14:02
Speaker 3: have to mean towers in the park. Density can mean
14:04
Speaker 3: six story, eight story Jordan Edwardian terraces and building more
14:10
Speaker 3: beautiful and livable housing like that would allow us to
14:13
Speaker 3: allow many, many millions more people to move into London,
14:16
Speaker 3: get better jobs, start more companies with each other, and
14:19
Speaker 3: I think produce huge amounts of extra output and we're
14:22
Speaker 3: just not doing it. And I think fixing that would
14:25
Speaker 3: be a tremendously easy way to drive a lot of
14:28
Speaker 3: economic growth, and to just get a lot of output
14:31
Speaker 3: just building those homes would be a lot of economic
14:33
Speaker 3: activity and a lot of economic outputs that we could
14:36
Speaker 3: have tomorrow. We could begin working on that tomorrow if
14:38
Speaker 3: we want such.
14:39
Speaker 2: Planning isn't just about houses. It's about transport and all
14:43
Speaker 2: the other infrastructure that we need, and there we have
14:45
Speaker 2: a major problem as well, don't we.
14:48
Speaker 3: Absolutely. I mean, the example that I find most frustrating
14:51
Speaker 3: is this tunnel called the Lower Thames Crossing, which is
14:54
Speaker 3: being built, or at least being proposed to be built
14:57
Speaker 3: under the Thames to link up Kent and Essex. And
15:01
Speaker 3: this will also link up England's two busiest seaports, so
15:04
Speaker 3: there's a very obvious economic need for this. Now, the
15:08
Speaker 3: planning application for this alone has run to three hundred
15:11
Speaker 3: and sixty thousand pages and cost two hundred and ninety
15:15
Speaker 3: seven million pounds, which for context, is twice what it
15:19
Speaker 3: costs the Norwegians to actually build the world's longest tunnel.
15:22
Speaker 2: Okay, we now we need to reread that. The planning
15:24
Speaker 2: documentation for the Lower Thames Crossing, which as you've just said,
15:27
Speaker 2: is incredibly important, three hundred and sixty thousand pages going
15:32
Speaker 2: on three hundred million so far. I'm going to repeat
15:35
Speaker 2: this because it's so important. That is more than twice
15:38
Speaker 2: as much as it costs Norway to actually build the
15:43
Speaker 2: longest road tunnel in the world. We have spent more
15:46
Speaker 2: on planning, double as much on planning alone than Norway
15:50
Speaker 2: has spent on building something similar. That is off the scale. Shocking,
15:54
Speaker 2: isn't it.
15:55
Speaker 3: It's astonishing And it's one of those figures that you
15:58
Speaker 3: have to read it and you have to check it,
16:00
Speaker 3: you know, you please. I encourage people who are sort
16:03
Speaker 3: of rolling their eyes in this belief check the sources, please,
16:07
Speaker 3: because it's so unbelievable and far fetched that it feels
16:12
Speaker 3: like no reasonable person could possibly have allowed the system
16:16
Speaker 3: to get this way. But it isn't just planning in
16:18
Speaker 3: the case of infrastructure. It isn't just planning in the
16:21
Speaker 3: case of housing either, but it's primarily planning for housing.
16:25
Speaker 3: There are environmental assessments that slow down projects enormously cost
16:30
Speaker 3: huge amount of money. To reopen a three mile train
16:33
Speaker 3: trap between Bristol and Porto's Head, there is an eighteen
16:37
Speaker 3: thousand page environmental assessment that cost thirty two million pounds
16:41
Speaker 3: and to put that into context. The Jubilee Line extension
16:44
Speaker 3: in the early nineteen nineties had a four hundred page
16:46
Speaker 3: environmental assessment. So this is a recent phenomenon. This is
16:50
Speaker 3: a new development that we are requiring environmental assessments like
16:54
Speaker 3: this and of this cost and of this time, and
16:57
Speaker 3: it's one of the really really major reasons we have
16:59
Speaker 3: other Some people would call them checks. I would call
17:03
Speaker 3: them hugead roadblocks to building things. Something called the Aarhus Convention,
17:08
Speaker 3: which is an international convention that the UK as a
17:11
Speaker 3: signatory to, which caps the cost of legal challenges to
17:16
Speaker 3: infrastructure projects. So if you are a even if you lose,
17:20
Speaker 3: so if you are a vexatious claimant you don't want
17:24
Speaker 3: a tunnel being built near you, you can sue or
17:27
Speaker 3: you can judicially review the project, and even if you lose,
17:32
Speaker 3: the costs that you will have to pay to cover
17:35
Speaker 3: the winners' costs are capped at between five and ten pounds,
17:39
Speaker 3: so trivial, trivial amount of money. And this is something
17:42
Speaker 3: that we have made stricter in the last seven or
17:45
Speaker 3: eight years. But Theresa May government actually made this stricter
17:47
Speaker 3: unbelievably and what we've created is a situation where legal
17:53
Speaker 3: challenges to infrastructure are very easy and very cheap. There
17:58
Speaker 3: are huge numbers of triggers for judicial reviews, there is
18:01
Speaker 3: huge compliance cost with the planning system and the environmental
18:04
Speaker 3: assessment system. And then on top of all of that,
18:07
Speaker 3: the way that we pay for major infrastructure projects in
18:10
Speaker 3: the UK has moved from being something that was devolved
18:14
Speaker 3: and was either done by a private company as in
18:16
Speaker 3: the case of most of our railroads, or by local
18:19
Speaker 3: authority as in the case of many roads and tramways
18:23
Speaker 3: during the era of the tram to a situation where
18:26
Speaker 3: national government pays for things and oversees major projects, and
18:30
Speaker 3: almost nobody in that project has an incentive to keep
18:34
Speaker 3: costs down. And I think this is the real problem
18:36
Speaker 3: that HS two had, where basically nobody in the decision
18:40
Speaker 3: making pipeline had any incentive to keep costs down for
18:44
Speaker 3: HS two and that includes the cost of appeasing objectives,
18:48
Speaker 3: you know. I think there probably does need to be
18:50
Speaker 3: some appeasement nim of Nimbi's in some cases for political reasons,
18:55
Speaker 3: but there has to be a counter a counterweight to
18:58
Speaker 3: that that says, if you appease these people too much,
19:01
Speaker 3: and if you spend you know, billions of pounds on
19:03
Speaker 3: unnecessarily tunneling loads and loads of miles of this line.
19:06
Speaker 3: A quarter of HS two is supposed to be tunneled
19:09
Speaker 3: to basically avoid NIMBIA complaints. Then you're going to go bankrupt,
19:13
Speaker 3: you know, or the project is not going to happen,
19:15
Speaker 3: or you will get fired, or your voters will vote
19:18
Speaker 3: you out. And we have very few of those mechanisms
19:21
Speaker 3: in place now for these projects. The only real mechanism
19:24
Speaker 3: that we have is the Treasury coming in and saying, okay,
19:27
Speaker 3: you know what, Actually, you spend too much money on this,
19:29
Speaker 3: We're canceling this, or we're going to cancel some of this,
19:31
Speaker 3: which is a very blunt to cancel.
19:34
Speaker 2: Are awful, that's not the correct incentive. Spend too much
19:37
Speaker 2: and we don't do it. Not norful.
19:40
Speaker 3: Absolutely, we don't want a situation where the only two
19:42
Speaker 3: options are extremely expensive infrastructure or canceled infrastructure. We want
19:48
Speaker 3: there to be incentives. And you know, anybody who's worked
19:51
Speaker 3: for any kind of on any kind of complex project
19:54
Speaker 3: knows you need people at every step of the decision
19:56
Speaker 3: making chain to be worried about costs. There is all
20:00
Speaker 3: always going to be cost inflation, and you need people
20:02
Speaker 3: with strong incentives to keep the costs down to make
20:05
Speaker 3: decisions that say, you know, this isn't going to be
20:07
Speaker 3: the fastest ty speed rail line in the world. This
20:09
Speaker 3: is going to be the second fastest or of the
20:10
Speaker 3: fifth fastest. You know, it's going to be a lot
20:12
Speaker 3: better than what we've got, but it's going to be
20:15
Speaker 3: not by it's not going to be gold plated. And unfortunately,
20:18
Speaker 3: we just don't do that. So all of the problems
20:21
Speaker 3: that we have with environmental assessments and with planning and
20:25
Speaker 3: judicial reviews and stuff like that are compounded by the
20:28
Speaker 3: fact that the incentives for the people who are actually
20:30
Speaker 3: running the project don't factor costs in at all, really,
20:34
Speaker 3: and I think that's the kind of underlying reason that
20:37
Speaker 3: cost disease has grown so badly in infrastructure and things
20:40
Speaker 3: like nuclear power as well, but infrastructure especially, And again,
20:44
Speaker 3: we can change that. You know, we can evolve decision
20:48
Speaker 3: making to people who are more accountable for the decisions
20:51
Speaker 3: they make and who can go bankrupt, and we can
20:53
Speaker 3: bring a more involved role for the private sector that
20:56
Speaker 3: includes loss as well as profit. I think a huge,
21:00
Speaker 3: huge problem that we've got is when we do these
21:02
Speaker 3: sort of quasi private projects. There is still the kind
21:05
Speaker 3: of government, a funder of last resorts that that insulates
21:10
Speaker 3: the private sector from its cost increases. And we can
21:13
Speaker 3: change that, but it will be challenging and it's not
21:16
Speaker 3: straightforward to get there from where we are.
21:18
Speaker 2: Let's go back to nuclear energy that you just mentioned.
21:20
Speaker 2: I mean, one of the really horrifying things happening in
21:23
Speaker 2: the UK at the moment, in over the last decade
21:25
Speaker 2: is this extremely fast rise in the cost and the
21:28
Speaker 2: cost of electricity, and that you know, that's just a
21:30
Speaker 2: destroyer of industry, isn't it, given that you know, like
21:33
Speaker 2: economic activity is energy transformed one way or another. The
21:36
Speaker 2: how you make the price of energy, the less likely
21:39
Speaker 2: you are to get very much out of the other end.
21:41
Speaker 2: Now we're supposed to be living in a world, we
21:43
Speaker 2: keep being told with living in a world where our
21:45
Speaker 2: huge investment into the renewable industry will make our electricity
21:48
Speaker 2: cheaper and cheaper and everything's going to be absolutely marvelous.
21:51
Speaker 2: That's not happening.
21:53
Speaker 3: Yeah. I have to say I actually went into this
21:56
Speaker 3: paper feeling much more optimistic about intermittent renewables, wind and
22:02
Speaker 3: solar than I do now, and in the process of
22:05
Speaker 3: research and writing and speaking to people who are working
22:09
Speaker 3: in this sector, I have come away with the sense
22:12
Speaker 3: that really we are doomed if we think that wind
22:16
Speaker 3: and solar are going to save us. And I think
22:18
Speaker 3: part of this is because solar does seem very promising
22:22
Speaker 3: in some parts of the world. You know, the cost
22:24
Speaker 3: of photovoltaic solar cells is collapsing. You know, we're getting
22:27
Speaker 3: to a point where solar cells, I mean, they're not
22:30
Speaker 3: going to be quite free, but they're going to be
22:32
Speaker 3: something approximating free. The problem is that you also need
22:36
Speaker 3: storage in a place like the UK where we get very,
22:40
Speaker 3: very overcast, whether as everybody knows, I mean possibly people
22:44
Speaker 3: listening to this right now are listening to it in
22:46
Speaker 3: a very overcast This is the this is the time,
22:50
Speaker 3: the time of the year where solar is really not
22:53
Speaker 3: very good. But you know, in south in the southwest
22:56
Speaker 3: of the United States, in Spain, in North Africa, solar
22:59
Speaker 3: may be very very problem. The trouble is it's just
23:01
Speaker 3: not going to work here. It may have some role
23:04
Speaker 3: to play, but we just cannot expect the base load
23:08
Speaker 3: energy that we need, the base electricity production that we
23:10
Speaker 3: need to come from solar and wind is just not
23:13
Speaker 3: seeing anything like the kind of cost reductions that solar
23:16
Speaker 3: is see.
23:16
Speaker 2: Well, you talked about there being a system level cost
23:18
Speaker 2: that people don't really think of, and there are all
23:20
Speaker 2: things actually that we've talked about on this pod before.
23:22
Speaker 2: The need for transmission lines to connect generation to households
23:25
Speaker 2: and industry. And in the old days, you had a
23:28
Speaker 2: few large power stations, and the transmission network simply connected
23:31
Speaker 2: those large power stations to the communities where the power
23:34
Speaker 2: was needed. But now if you have the power being
23:36
Speaker 2: developed in loads and loads of remote places all over
23:38
Speaker 2: the country, you have a very very different setup. And
23:41
Speaker 2: there's that cost, and then there's the costs of the
23:43
Speaker 2: grid balancing where you have to match up this intermittent
23:46
Speaker 2: energy with the needs. And then of course there's the
23:49
Speaker 2: cost of backup capacity. These are the three things that
23:52
Speaker 2: you list, and all these things are not necessarily always
23:55
Speaker 2: included when we look at the cost of renewals, and
23:57
Speaker 2: if you do include them, you get slightly differ pature.
24:00
Speaker 2: Is that fair?
24:02
Speaker 3: Huge? Yeah, and completely, And I think the mistake that
24:06
Speaker 3: some people make is looking at wholesale costs, which are
24:11
Speaker 3: only about thirty percent of final bills. Incidentally, wholesale costs
24:15
Speaker 3: are really a significant but not overwhelming fraction of what
24:21
Speaker 3: we pay for when we pay for electricity. The rest
24:24
Speaker 3: is these kinds of system level costs, and what we're
24:26
Speaker 3: doing with renewables and really with nuclear as well, is
24:31
Speaker 3: moving from a world where marginal wholesale costs are the
24:35
Speaker 3: most important thing to worry about, which is the case
24:37
Speaker 3: with gas, which is the case with coal, which is
24:39
Speaker 3: the case with oil, to a world where fixed costs
24:43
Speaker 3: are things that we really care about. You know, the
24:45
Speaker 3: marginal cost of a wind turbine is very low, totally agree,
24:49
Speaker 3: But the fixed cost of a wind turbine, once you
24:51
Speaker 3: include all of the system level costs you're talking about,
24:54
Speaker 3: isn't quite high. And once you include the need to
24:56
Speaker 3: produce electricity when the wind isn't blowing, and produce electricity
25:00
Speaker 3: and travel transport electricity from where the wind turbine is
25:03
Speaker 3: to where people actually need it, then the costs become
25:06
Speaker 3: quite significant. And I think that's the way that we
25:09
Speaker 3: make sense of this apparent paradox where we've been moving
25:12
Speaker 3: from a world where you know, where we've been building
25:16
Speaker 3: lots and lots of renewables, which you know do indeed
25:19
Speaker 3: have very very low the wholesale costs when they're producing energy,
25:24
Speaker 3: but we have to pay for them to have been
25:27
Speaker 3: set up in the first place. You know, we have
25:30
Speaker 3: talked about the environmental levees, things like the renewables obligation
25:34
Speaker 3: contracts for difference, these are the contracts and subsidies that
25:38
Speaker 3: are explicit that we have set up to support renewables,
25:42
Speaker 3: and they are important. You know. They now exceed ten
25:45
Speaker 3: billion pounds a year, but they're not anywhere near the
25:48
Speaker 3: whole story. And even if we weren't on the hook
25:50
Speaker 3: for those, the cost of renewables I think would still
25:53
Speaker 3: be prohibitive. At the beginning of November, the energy mix
25:58
Speaker 3: for the first week was majority gas. And this is
26:01
Speaker 3: in a context where we've already built decades. We've already
26:05
Speaker 3: built more of a wind and solar for more than
26:07
Speaker 3: a decade. We are supposed to be able to move
26:10
Speaker 3: to a decarbonized electricity grid, or the government's aim is
26:13
Speaker 3: to move to a decarbonized electricity grid by the end
26:16
Speaker 3: of the decade. I just do not believe that that
26:18
Speaker 3: is possible with wind and solar, and if I'm wrong,
26:20
Speaker 3: please you know, I very much hope my role that
26:23
Speaker 3: I just don't think that that's going to happen. Think
26:27
Speaker 3: the thing that we point to, and that the event
26:31
Speaker 3: that we point to that is a model that we
26:33
Speaker 3: may be able to follow is France's nuclear roller in
26:36
Speaker 3: the nineteen seventies and the nineteen eighties, which was state led.
26:40
Speaker 3: Probably wasn't the way I would have favored it at
26:42
Speaker 3: the time, and I would hope that we could do
26:44
Speaker 3: a non state leaded version of it, but managed to
26:47
Speaker 3: decarbonize the French economy far far earlier than or decarbonize
26:52
Speaker 3: the French electricity grid at least far far earlier than
26:55
Speaker 3: any other Western European country, and did so without really
26:58
Speaker 3: having decarbonization in mind. And now that the rest of
27:02
Speaker 3: Western Europe is I think trying to decarbonize the wrong
27:06
Speaker 3: way with intermittent renewabals rather than nuclear. France has become
27:09
Speaker 3: quite an important energy exporter. We are quite reliant on
27:13
Speaker 3: French nuclear energy when the windows are blowing and when
27:16
Speaker 3: the sun isn't shining. I think that it would be
27:19
Speaker 3: a mistake to continue that state of affairs, and I
27:22
Speaker 3: think nuclear is a clean form of electricity that we
27:25
Speaker 3: should be looking to the problem is that it's so expensive.
27:28
Speaker 3: The problem is that we are building nuclear power plants
27:31
Speaker 3: for vastly more than even Winden solar cost us.
27:36
Speaker 2: And it doesn't have that expensive does it. I mean,
27:39
Speaker 2: one of the numbers that I keep killing out is
27:40
Speaker 2: that I saw somewhere and you can tell me if
27:42
Speaker 2: this is correct or not, that we made seven thousand,
27:45
Speaker 2: seven thousand design adjustments to the Hinkley plant against the
27:50
Speaker 2: design that I think work perfetly well in France, and
27:52
Speaker 2: each one of those adjustments comes with cost absolutely.
27:56
Speaker 3: I mean, my favorite cost is the underwater megaphone to
28:03
Speaker 3: scare away fish from the kind of cooling system the
28:07
Speaker 3: reactor at Hinkley Point C needs to draw in seawater
28:11
Speaker 3: to cool itself down, and some fish would be killed
28:14
Speaker 3: in the process, not in any way that would be
28:16
Speaker 3: dangerous to the reactor, but just some fish should be
28:18
Speaker 3: I think, sucked into a grid and killed. And some
28:21
Speaker 3: of these fish, you know, a few hundred of these
28:24
Speaker 3: fish would be from rare and protected species, and so
28:28
Speaker 3: the reactor, the EDF was instructed to come up with
28:32
Speaker 3: a way to stop these fish from being sucked in.
28:36
Speaker 3: Their solution was to build an underwater megaphone. That would
28:39
Speaker 3: play loud noises that would scare fish away. And amazingly,
28:44
Speaker 3: doing this will actually increase the risk to human life
28:48
Speaker 3: of the reactor because the megaphone has to be maintained
28:52
Speaker 3: by divers who undertake some risk in doing this. So
28:57
Speaker 3: in order to protect fish, we have not just increased
29:00
Speaker 3: the cost to the project, we've actually increased the danger
29:03
Speaker 3: to human life. And again this is really for a
29:05
Speaker 3: few hundred fish.
29:07
Speaker 2: Of this we know what that costs per fish in
29:10
Speaker 2: terms of protection.
29:13
Speaker 3: I don't know off the top of my head what
29:14
Speaker 3: that costs. I'm not sure the number is actually public
29:17
Speaker 3: for how much this particular adjustment costs.
29:21
Speaker 2: So I'm not sure if we don't anyone, If anyone
29:23
Speaker 2: knows the value that the UK state places on the
29:27
Speaker 2: life of every fish, please do right in and let
29:30
Speaker 2: us know.
29:31
Speaker 3: But I mean, it is really extraordinary if you look
29:33
Speaker 3: at what we built nuclear for in the eighties and
29:37
Speaker 3: as late as the nineteen nineties, we built Size Well
29:39
Speaker 3: B for about well less than half the price that
29:43
Speaker 3: we're building Hintley points C for and about two thirds
29:48
Speaker 3: of the price that we are estimated to build Size
29:50
Speaker 3: Well SEE. Although I will confidently predict that size. Well, see,
29:53
Speaker 3: will increase in costs once we start building it for things,
29:55
Speaker 3: for the reasons that we're talking about that there is
29:58
Speaker 3: no final decision on a project like nuclear. You keep
30:01
Speaker 3: having to go back, you keep having to make adjustments,
30:04
Speaker 3: you keep having to do compliance and kind of this
30:08
Speaker 3: dance with the regulator and with the environmental the environmental regulator,
30:13
Speaker 3: and it means that costs just drive up and up
30:15
Speaker 3: and up and up. Now we know both from history
30:19
Speaker 3: and from international examples that it doesn't have to be
30:22
Speaker 3: this way. South Korea builds nuclear reactors for about a
30:27
Speaker 3: quarter of the price that we build them in South Korea,
30:30
Speaker 3: and it has committed to building new reactors in the
30:33
Speaker 3: Czech Republic for about half the price that we're building.
30:36
Speaker 3: So a very simple solution would be to contract with
30:39
Speaker 3: the South Korean Energy Authority KEEPCO to do this for us.
30:43
Speaker 3: I think a more exciting approach, you know, I think
30:46
Speaker 3: we should probably do that. I think a more exciting approach,
30:49
Speaker 3: but actually just fixing our regulation to rebuild the UK
30:53
Speaker 3: nuclear industry, which could be world leading. You know, there's
30:56
Speaker 3: no reason that we should have to resort to South
31:00
Speaker 3: Career to build our nuclear reactors. We have built many,
31:02
Speaker 3: many good nuclear reactors. We built the world's first nuclear
31:05
Speaker 3: reactor and by the by as late as the nineteen sixties,
31:08
Speaker 3: we had more nuclear reactors than the rest of the
31:10
Speaker 3: world put together. Or you know, in existence in Sheffield
31:13
Speaker 3: is a company that builds some of the effectively a
31:16
Speaker 3: world leading nuclear reactor casing company that's still operating, still exporting.
31:22
Speaker 3: It's you know, it's a company that not many people
31:24
Speaker 3: know about, but is something that I think we should
31:26
Speaker 3: be quite proud of. We should be reviving that kind
31:29
Speaker 3: of industry by making it much easier to build, making
31:32
Speaker 3: it much more certain to build, and ultimately making it
31:35
Speaker 3: much cheaper to build. And it will have the double
31:37
Speaker 3: benefit of yes, we'll be able to provide the nuclear industry.
31:41
Speaker 3: Yes we'll be able to build the low carbon energy
31:45
Speaker 3: that we need for an actually affordable price. And actually
31:48
Speaker 3: a triple benefit is that in getting much cheaper electricity,
31:52
Speaker 3: other English, other English industry, British industry will be able
31:56
Speaker 3: to come back. So we know the industry is incredibly
31:59
Speaker 3: sensitive to the price of electricity. It's obvious that it
32:01
Speaker 3: will be and as we decarbonize, we're going to get
32:04
Speaker 3: more and more dependent on the price of electricity being
32:06
Speaker 3: low to have industry. I think it's quite important that
32:09
Speaker 3: we do that. And I think that whatever discussions and
32:12
Speaker 3: debates people want to have about industrial policy, and that's great,
32:15
Speaker 3: but the best industrial policy in the world is not
32:18
Speaker 3: going to work for you if you don't have electricity
32:21
Speaker 3: costs that are competitive with South Korea, competitive with China,
32:24
Speaker 3: competitive with India, and right now we are way way
32:27
Speaker 3: way above them.
32:28
Speaker 2: Okay, let's talk about optimism. Should we try that? You
32:34
Speaker 2: try that, Let's do it. And one of the things
32:39
Speaker 2: that you stress in your importance I think is very
32:41
Speaker 2: valuable is that the value of the UK's institutions are
32:45
Speaker 2: you know, our legal system, our parliamentary system, all these
32:49
Speaker 2: things that we have that are still reasonably solid that
32:52
Speaker 2: we still believe in. And of course we have our
32:54
Speaker 2: amazing financial industry. We have English which we can't dismiss,
32:59
Speaker 2: and we have a a great time zone, we have
33:01
Speaker 2: some wonderful advantages. We have very solid base right that
33:05
Speaker 2: still exists, not going anywhere. What you're feeling about fixing
33:10
Speaker 2: the rest, I mean our most recent budget. Flicking through
33:15
Speaker 2: it and looking at it, I'm not entirely sure that
33:18
Speaker 2: Rachel reeves had read your essay quite as carefully as
33:21
Speaker 2: the rest of us.
33:23
Speaker 3: Well. I the reason that I am optimistic, I think
33:28
Speaker 3: there are two main reasons. One is that things really
33:32
Speaker 3: are getting very very bad things. Really every year that
33:37
Speaker 3: goes by that we don't see not just normal growth.
33:40
Speaker 3: I mean, we've had so much stagnation since the mid
33:43
Speaker 3: two thousands that we should be seeing quite rapid catch
33:46
Speaker 3: up growth, both catching up with the US the kind
33:49
Speaker 3: of economic frontier, and just catching up with the trend,
33:52
Speaker 3: catching up with what we look like we should have
33:55
Speaker 3: been we should have been on for prior to the
33:58
Speaker 3: late mid two thousands. So every year that goes by
34:02
Speaker 3: that we experience stagnation, I think it becomes harder and
34:06
Speaker 3: harder to deny that we have a really, really big problem.
34:08
Speaker 3: And I think people do recognize, and the response to
34:11
Speaker 3: this paper I think shows that people really do recognize
34:14
Speaker 3: that the big problem is that we're just more building things.
34:17
Speaker 3: We're not allowing things to be built. You know, the
34:19
Speaker 3: price of a house in London is very very high.
34:22
Speaker 3: There is a huge amount of demand to live in
34:24
Speaker 3: somewhere like London, Oxford, Cambridge. It isn't that there isn't demand.
34:27
Speaker 3: If if it was really cheap to live in London
34:30
Speaker 3: and we would still stagnating, then I'd be worried because
34:32
Speaker 3: I would think that we may have nothing going for us.
34:36
Speaker 3: You know, we may be trying to jump start an
34:39
Speaker 3: entire economy here. Really we're just trying to meet demand
34:43
Speaker 3: that is already there. So that's one reason I think
34:45
Speaker 3: people are becoming more and more aware of the problem.
34:48
Speaker 3: The second reason is that a lot of the time,
34:52
Speaker 3: the answer, I think is giving more control at a
34:56
Speaker 3: much more local level and taking control away from national
35:00
Speaker 3: level quangos and national level kind of independent agencies that
35:05
Speaker 3: we've set up, I think in a quite a misguided
35:06
Speaker 3: way to try to fix problems, in my opinion, are
35:10
Speaker 3: not really the big problems that we've got. So I
35:13
Speaker 3: think that, for example, if local councils could make decisions
35:16
Speaker 3: about nuclear power permitting rather than the environmental agency, rather
35:22
Speaker 3: than the rather than the amount of involvement that the
35:26
Speaker 3: nuclear regulator has. We should be checking for safety. We
35:29
Speaker 3: should be checking to make sure that the nuclear reactor
35:31
Speaker 3: is safe, but we shouldn't be worried about whether the
35:34
Speaker 3: nuclear reactor is going to kill a few.
35:36
Speaker 2: Fish or ruin someone's view, yeah, And.
35:39
Speaker 3: The reason that we should be optimistic is that local
35:42
Speaker 3: councils should have a really strong incentive to allow things
35:46
Speaker 3: like that to be built in their areas because they
35:48
Speaker 3: bring jobs, they've bring built business rates, payments. There are
35:52
Speaker 3: all sorts of reasons that you should want these things
35:55
Speaker 3: to be built in your area. And historically it was
35:57
Speaker 3: the case that you would want these things to be
35:59
Speaker 3: built in these in your area. It's a fairly recent phenomenon.
36:02
Speaker 3: It's a post war phenomenon that local councils do not
36:05
Speaker 3: want prisons in their area. They don't want the kinds
36:07
Speaker 3: of infrastructure that the country wants because we do not
36:12
Speaker 3: allow them to retain the business rates that those projects
36:15
Speaker 3: used to pay. Fixing that I think should be quite easy.
36:18
Speaker 3: And once we fix that kind of incentive, and you know,
36:21
Speaker 3: I mentioned earlier local councils used to have a really
36:24
Speaker 3: strong incentive to not block development because they would have
36:27
Speaker 3: to pay for it. I think that's what kind of
36:29
Speaker 3: mechanism we want to go back to, and we want
36:32
Speaker 3: to give them incentives to allow development. And I think
36:34
Speaker 3: once we do that, combined with devolving decision making to
36:38
Speaker 3: that kind of level, we will fix a lot of
36:40
Speaker 3: the incentives problems that exists. I think it's quite striking
36:44
Speaker 3: that during the era of the tram in the UK,
36:47
Speaker 3: when you know, we had the first major tramways in
36:50
Speaker 3: many cities, we had the first overhead tramway and lead
36:53
Speaker 3: overhead powered tramway and leads. Many of these tramways were
36:56
Speaker 3: not run by private companies. They were run by the
36:58
Speaker 3: local authority for profit and they were used by the
37:01
Speaker 3: local authority to generate money that they could then spend
37:03
Speaker 3: on other projects. I think we have a pretty good
37:06
Speaker 3: tradition here that local government can actually allow things to
37:11
Speaker 3: be built and build things themselves if we give them
37:14
Speaker 3: the right incentives to do so. So I'm quite optimistic
37:16
Speaker 3: about that, I think kind of Secondly, the other thing
37:18
Speaker 3: that we should be doing is giving Parliament much more
37:21
Speaker 3: power over national level projects that get built. Again, historically,
37:25
Speaker 3: when we built railways in the nineteenth century and right
37:28
Speaker 3: up until the Second World War, I believe it wasn't
37:31
Speaker 3: an independent quango that made the decision about what got built.
37:34
Speaker 3: It would be a private operator would have a proposal.
37:37
Speaker 3: They would say, you know, we want to build this
37:38
Speaker 3: railway from here to there. They would bring it to
37:40
Speaker 3: a select committee in Parliament. The select committee would make
37:43
Speaker 3: a decision. They would then pass a build that would
37:45
Speaker 3: protect the project from vexatious lawsuits and things like that,
37:49
Speaker 3: and it would get built and you have a privately
37:52
Speaker 3: owned operatives and managed railway. I think there is a
37:58
Speaker 3: lot of infrastructure that could be built by that mechanism.
38:01
Speaker 3: It would be it would bring power over these kinds
38:04
Speaker 3: of projects back to democratic decision makers, away from I think,
38:09
Speaker 3: very very badly incentivized kind of independent bureaucrats. And that's
38:14
Speaker 3: the kind of underlying change we need to the country
38:17
Speaker 3: that I think probably could happen. It certainly won't be easy,
38:21
Speaker 3: and it certainly will be quite a significant change in
38:23
Speaker 3: the way we do things, but it would be going
38:25
Speaker 3: back to the way we did things when things worked
38:27
Speaker 3: really well and when we build block things in this country.
38:30
Speaker 3: So it's possible. I think there's a growing demand for it,
38:33
Speaker 3: and I think what's really optimistic about it is that
38:35
Speaker 3: it works with the grain of the history of British
38:38
Speaker 3: democracy rather than against them.
38:40
Speaker 2: I agree with you. The only thing I'm concerned about
38:43
Speaker 2: is that I'm not sure that I'm seeing in this
38:45
Speaker 2: government and appetite for understanding that appetite for decentralizing and
38:50
Speaker 2: appetite for moving away from x non democratic quang goes
38:55
Speaker 2: back to parliament and appetite for sending power back to councils.
38:58
Speaker 2: And I don't see that. I've fascinated to know that
39:03
Speaker 2: you do.
39:04
Speaker 3: I don't see it in this government. I have to admit.
39:08
Speaker 3: I think that it may be that this government fills
39:12
Speaker 3: the need for growth such that it just does the
39:17
Speaker 3: kind of nuclear option of calling in projects centrally approving
39:20
Speaker 3: them and just making them happen. You know, they've done
39:23
Speaker 3: this with a few renewables projects. I don't yet have
39:27
Speaker 3: a sense that they're going to do this for things
39:29
Speaker 3: like nuclear, but they might. I think that they have
39:33
Speaker 3: nailed their colors to the mass of growth so much
39:36
Speaker 3: that they need growth kind of politically they are they
39:39
Speaker 3: are going to be kind of humiliated if they don't
39:42
Speaker 3: get growth. And fiscally, you know, it's looking increasingly likely
39:47
Speaker 3: that the tax the tax rises that were in the
39:50
Speaker 3: budgets are not going to deliver the kinds of revenues
39:53
Speaker 3: that were expected or were hoped for, which means that
39:57
Speaker 3: they really really need growth. Both from a fiscal point
39:59
Speaker 3: of view, and the political point of view. So you know,
40:02
Speaker 3: stranger things will have happened than a government like this
40:06
Speaker 3: realizing that it needs to be quite bold. I don't
40:09
Speaker 3: think they're going to do the huge constitutional changes that
40:11
Speaker 3: I would love, and you know, I think we have
40:13
Speaker 3: to wait for a future government to do that. But
40:15
Speaker 3: in the meantime I could see this government just saying, look,
40:19
Speaker 3: we need houses to get built. We're going to upseone
40:21
Speaker 3: parts of London, or we're going to do the Cambridge
40:23
Speaker 3: Extension to build an extra quarter of a million homes
40:25
Speaker 3: in Cambridge, whatever it might be. I'm not super optimistic
40:29
Speaker 3: about that. But gravity is a powerful for us and
40:33
Speaker 3: it's not one that this government can bum.
40:34
Speaker 2: When we talk about productivity, which you've done quite a
40:36
Speaker 2: lot of the lat half an hour. So one of
40:38
Speaker 2: the things that we haven't talked about is the public sector.
40:41
Speaker 2: And again it's not something that's been addressed by this
40:43
Speaker 2: government so far, although obviously we have hopes, not high hopes,
40:45
Speaker 2: but hopes that it will be addressed. Is there anything
40:50
Speaker 2: you haven't You didn't really write about this and this report,
40:52
Speaker 2: but is there anything you feel we can really do there?
40:55
Speaker 2: And one of the shocking things when you look at
40:56
Speaker 2: the numbers, is productivity having literally barely budged in the
41:01
Speaker 2: public sector of a multi decade period, despite the extraordinary
41:05
Speaker 2: technological games the rest of us have made over that period.
41:08
Speaker 2: Can you see I'm pulling here back to your optimism.
41:12
Speaker 2: What can you see you happening there?
41:14
Speaker 3: I so the optimist in me says that the money
41:18
Speaker 3: that has been assigned to the NHS is going to
41:22
Speaker 3: be used to kind of grease the wheels of reform.
41:26
Speaker 3: If I am, if I'm optimistic, then then that's what
41:29
Speaker 3: they're doing. I don't think we have any reason to
41:31
Speaker 3: think that that what you do, but you know, maybe
41:33
Speaker 3: maybe they will do.
41:35
Speaker 2: Between optimism and delusion, you.
41:37
Speaker 3: Know, well, and I'm not saying that is what's going
41:40
Speaker 3: to happen. I'm saying it's plausible that that's the plan.
41:42
Speaker 3: I think the alternative, much less optimistic reading, is that
41:46
Speaker 3: they're making the same mistake that the List Trust government
41:48
Speaker 3: made of doing the kind of fun bit first. In
41:52
Speaker 3: the Trust's case, it was tag cuts. In this government's case,
41:55
Speaker 3: it's spending money on public services and talking about, oh,
41:57
Speaker 3: we'll do the supply side reforms later, rather than I think,
42:00
Speaker 3: you know, taking your medicine of the supply side reforms,
42:04
Speaker 3: getting a bit of growth, getting some sign that they're working,
42:06
Speaker 3: and then rewarding yourself or rewarding your clients with more
42:10
Speaker 3: money or with task cuts or whatever you want to do.
42:13
Speaker 3: That's my kind of pessimistic take on what they're going
42:15
Speaker 3: to do. I don't have a huge amount of insight
42:18
Speaker 3: into what they're planning, so I don't know what they're
42:20
Speaker 3: doing there. I think that public services do not seem
42:25
Speaker 3: as if they are a high priority for reform from
42:29
Speaker 3: this government. The thing that really worries me is that
42:34
Speaker 3: I think that labor came into power thinking that the
42:37
Speaker 3: reason the Conservatives failed was that they didn't know how
42:40
Speaker 3: to use the civil service quote unquote. This was a
42:43
Speaker 3: thing that I just kept hearing of the Tories saying
42:45
Speaker 3: that they just don't know how to use the civil service,
42:48
Speaker 3: and we know how to use the civil service. And
42:51
Speaker 3: they went in They seemingly didn't have particularly well developed
42:54
Speaker 3: plans about what they actually wanted to do in government,
42:56
Speaker 3: and I think they expected that the civil service would
42:58
Speaker 3: tell them what they needed to do, which is a
43:00
Speaker 3: really a civil services job. You know, a civil service
43:02
Speaker 3: can advise you on various parameters that you that you
43:05
Speaker 3: set for it, but they're not there to tell you, well,
43:07
Speaker 3: you must build one point five million homes and this
43:09
Speaker 3: is how you're going to do it, and that's your
43:11
Speaker 3: job's that's why we elect a government. So I think
43:16
Speaker 3: the initial signs are that they don't seem to be
43:18
Speaker 3: aware of how much reform the civil service needs and
43:21
Speaker 3: public services more broadly quite the opposite. But it may
43:25
Speaker 3: be that their experience of this and you know, they
43:28
Speaker 3: have five years, so I've got they've got quite a
43:30
Speaker 3: bit of time sort of wakes them up to how
43:32
Speaker 3: much needs to change in terms of the British state.
43:35
Speaker 3: And again, would I bet on it, No, I probably wouldn't.
43:39
Speaker 3: I think the main reason to be optimistic about the
43:43
Speaker 3: UK economy over the next few years is that labor
43:46
Speaker 3: may need to do supply cyber reforms just to get growth.
43:49
Speaker 3: I don't think they're going to do very much on
43:50
Speaker 3: public services. They certainly don't seem to at the moment
43:57
Speaker 3: want to do a public service reform, except maybe in
43:59
Speaker 3: the NH. Yes, But like I say, five years is
44:03
Speaker 3: a long time and it's hard to buck gravity's if
44:08
Speaker 3: they keep putting more money into public services. They keep
44:10
Speaker 3: giving pay rises to public sector workers and they still
44:14
Speaker 3: aren't delivering improvements in service and in results. Then they
44:18
Speaker 3: may have no choice but to demand reform and to
44:21
Speaker 3: do this. But I don't think I will put money
44:24
Speaker 3: on it.
44:24
Speaker 2: Well, we'll worry about riding out the private sector on
44:27
Speaker 2: another podcast perhaps, But as we always say when we
44:29
Speaker 2: discuss these things, our favorite Adam Smith quote, there was
44:32
Speaker 2: a lot of ruin in a nation. Hopefully everything will
44:35
Speaker 2: be fine. Sam, Thank you so much for joining us today,
44:38
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me, Thanks for listening to this week's
44:43
Speaker 2: Merin Talks Money. If you like us, show, rate, review,
44:46
Speaker 2: and subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts, and keep sending
44:49
Speaker 2: questions or comments that Merin Money at Bloomberg dot net.
44:52
Speaker 2: Remember you may know more about some of these things
44:54
Speaker 2: than we do. Let us know. You can also follow
44:56
Speaker 2: me and John on Twitter or x I'm at mariners
44:59
Speaker 2: w and John is John Underscore s Epic. This episode
45:02
Speaker 2: was hosted by Me marin Somerset Web. It was produced
45:05
Speaker 2: by Someasadi, production support by Moses and and special thanks
45:09
Speaker 2: to Sam Bowman.