The British Elite's Bad Ideas

The Brexit Blame Game, Daily Signal, June 23, 2023. "Brexit wasn’t so much a policy as it was a demand that Britain have the right and the opportunity to make its own policies. It’s won that right—but Britain has to walk through the door on its own. So far, it mostly has failed to do so—and the policies it’s chosen mostly have been mistakes."

Britain Has to Earn It

On 6th Anniversary of Brexit, UK Yet to Grab All of Freedom’s Opportunities, Daily Signal, June 22, 2022. "Six years ago, on June 23, 2016, Britain voted to leave the European Union. Above all, Brexit was about regaining the right of self-government, which is a fundamental value."

Brexit Won't Work Without Economic Freedom

Post-Brexit Britain Gains Prosperity via Trade Freedom, but Tax-and-Spend Policies Threaten These Gains, Daily Signal, November 12, 2021. "In the months and years before Britain voted to leave the European Union in 2016, Brexit’s enemies based their case overwhelmingly on economic arguments. That is what they have always done. The reason is simple: The political case for the European Union in Britain is not popular, because it means subordinating the elected House of Commons to EU bureaucrats. So the EU’s friends in Britain talked about money instead of sovereignty."

The Decline and Fall of British Liberalism

Election Reveals Battle for Britain’s True Liberal Soul, Yorkshire Post, April 17, 2015. "THE debates between the party leaders have made one thing clear. The election isn’t just a struggle between the Tories, Labour, and the rest. It’s a moment that reveals the state of British liberalism. By liberalism, I don’t mean the nanny-statism that today passes for liberalism, with its identity group politics, its ravenous appetite for state spending in the name of appearing to care and its 
love of top-down control."

Too Much Is Never Enough, Apparently

A Bottom Up Look at the Top Down, Centre for Policy Studies, May 30, 2012. "If you believe that it is not possible to demonstrate that any particular level of taxation, welfare spending, or redistributive policies are economically counter-productive, and if you are in principle in favor of these things, then when do you say “enough,” and why do you decide to say it? A reliable way to get liberals excited is to say that they’re socialists. Fine, they’re not. But if Britain – where the government currently spends 50 percent of the nation’s GDP – is not verifiably well past the point of diminishing returns on state spending, where does that point lie? Is it 60 percent? 70 percent? 99 percent? If neither evidence nor principle tells you when to stop – and to go into reverse – then what does? At what point does the distinction between a really big government and socialism become irrelevant?

Bigger, But Not Better

From Britain, More Evidence That Smaller Government Is Better Government, Heritage Foundation Foundry, May 29, 2012. "The past week has seen the publication of two important studies on the virtues of smaller government by our friends in the United Kingdom. Neither paper is short, and both are technical in places, but they are both analytically careful and important contributions to the most important debate of our time, over when government grows so large that it becomes incompatible with the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

Here's One Thing You Missed: The Cuts Don't Exist

Britain Shows No Sign of Shaking Addiction to Debt, Taxes and Regulations, Contentions, March 7, 2012. "With British Prime Minister David Cameron’s state visit impending next week, we can expect to hear a good deal about – though see nothing very much done about – Afghanistan, the NATO Summit, Libya, and Syria, But we’re also likely to get a smattering of commentary about Britain’s parlous fiscal position. If we’re lucky, the media will talk about “Tory spending cuts.” If we’re really lucky, they’ll call them “savage.” Writ large, it’s useful to remember one thing about these spending cuts: they don’t exist."

Economic Freedom Means More Than Austerity

In Europe, Reducing Spending Necessary, But Not Sufficient, To Restore Economic Freedom, Heritage Foundation Foundry, January 17, 2012. "If the 2012 edition of Heritage’s Index of Economic Freedom has bad news for the United States, the news for Europe is not much better. The 43 nations of the European region did manage to lose less economic freedom than did the United States, but a decline is still a decline. And the European decline was broad-based: Only nine countries made gains, and every one of the top 10 declined—in some cases, dramatically. The underlying driver of the declines in many cases will come as no surprise: higher levels of government spending."

Osborne's Doing Better Than Obama

Osborne Has A Long Way To Go, But At Least He’s Started, Yorkshire Post, June 30, 2010. "According to the Left, there is never a good day to cut government spending. When the economy and tax revenues are growing, the Left wants to spend more because it can. When the economy is stagnant and tax revenues are shrinking, the Left argues it has no choice but to spend more, in order to cushion the blow. The result is that progressive governments transfer money from savers to spenders, from the productive economy to the unproductive state, and from the unborn to the living. For progressive governments, the economy is a goose that will keep on laying golden eggs, no matter what they do to it."

If At First You Don't Succeed . . . .

The Most Active Recovery Act Season Yet!, Heritage Foundation Foundry, June 18, 2010. "As Mike Allen of Politico reports, Vice President Joe Biden has kicked off what the Obama Administration calls its “Recovery Summer.” According to senior adviser David Axelrod, “This summer will be the most active Recovery Act season yet.” It sounds like Axelrod has never heard the popular saying about what to do when you’re in a hole: stop digging."

Rising Taxes, Declining Jobs

Less Economic Freedom = Fewer Jobs for Americans, Heritage Foundation Foundry, January 31, 2010. "What does America’s declining economic freedom mean for you? It means that America will create fewer jobs. And that means that Americans will be poorer, as well as less free."

The Index of Economic Freedom on Britain

The Mostly Free Anglo-American Alliance, Heritage Foundation Foundry, January 26, 2010. "The 2010 edition of the Index of Economic Freedom poses a frightening paradox. Around the world, the economically freest countries are, by and large, those with a British legacy. Indeed, the top five – Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, and Ireland – were either founded or influenced by the British. Of the top ten states, only Denmark, Switzerland, and Chile were not, at one point, governed from London. The lesson should be clear: economic freedom, born of the thought of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, spread round the world with the English-speaking people, to the immense benefit of both their children and those who learned from them. And yet the two most important English-speaking countries today are sliding backwards."

Gordon Brown Tells A Porkie

The Economy Drive, Contentions, January 7, 2010. "The parlous state of Britain’s economy and budget and the necessity of cuts in government spending should be common knowledge. The British public certainly grasps the situation. One manifestation is the data by the polling firm Ipsos-MORI. In its latest monthly “Issues Index,” which invites interviewees to name as many issues of concern as they care to, “Economy/Economic Situation” stands at 49%."

The IMF and OECD on Britain's Finances

Britain's Financial Quagmire, Heritage Foundation Foundry, July 21, 2009. "The International Monetary Fund has just published its annual “Staff Report” on Britain’s economy. It makes for grim reading. The IMF projects that Britain’s national debt will grow from 43% of GDP in 2007/08 to 73% of GDP in 2009/10. Its budget deficit in 2007/08 was 2.4% of GDP. By 2009/10, it will be 12.8%. And even those projections, though more pessimistic than the government’s widely-panned forecasts, may be too optimistic: the most recent public borrowing figures show that the pace of borrowing is accelerating as revenues fall. All due to the recession, you say? Not so, say both the government and the IMF . . . ."

When Did Britain and the US Diverge?

Barone on the Anglo-American Divergence, Contentions, July 21, 2009. "Michael Barone has a column today at Real Clear Politics that’s summed up by its title: “Britain and United States Go In Different Directions.” His thesis is cogent, and to an extent correct: the Obama Administration is trying to drag the U.S. to the left (he might well have said that the Administration is trying to Europeanize it), whereas in Britain, the next government looks likely to be Conservative, and to be more interested in shrinking the state (or at least restraining its growth) than expanding it. This divergence is limited only by the fact that it’s not easy to change the direction of politics: whatever the situation, no matter what the crisis, the status quo has inertia on its side. Arguing with Michael Barone about U.S. politics is a losing proposition. But he does miss an important piece of the British context . . . ."

No One Notices When Brown Comes To Town

Brown Presides Over A Diminished Britain, Yorkshire Post, July 9, 2009. "Gordon Brown joined other world leaders in Italy this week for the annual G8 summit. The problem, from his perspective, is that no-one notices when Gordon comes to town." This op-ed was written in my personal capacity.

Why The Unions Don't Like PFI

Labour's Hidden Debt -- And How Not to Fix It, Contentions, June 30, 2009. "If the government wants to spend money on a program — presuming it’s unwilling to simply roll the printing presses — it must choose between two ways of acquiring the needed funds. It can borrow the money, or it can raise it through taxation. Neither source is ideal. The disadvantage of raising taxes is obvious. The disadvantage of borrowing stems from markets taking notice, and — if you do it often and irresponsibly enough — punishing you for it. In Britain, Labour found a third way: i.e., writing very long-term contracts to private firms responsible for building and maintaining capital assets, in return for annual payments."

In Britain, Defense Cuts Impend (Again)

How Not to Cut Spending: More Defense Cuts in Britain Loom, Heritage Foundation Foundry, June 30, 2009. "Not so quietly, a new conventional wisdom has taken hold in Britain: defense spending must be cut. Last month, the Economist, in writing about “the end of the New Labour orthodoxy on public spending” – the orthodoxy being that the public sector “should consume an ever-increasing share of national wealth” – stated in passing that only the Liberal Democrats had grasped the need to axe major programs, like Britain’s Trident nuclear deterrent. This month, David Halpern, former Chief Analyst in Tony Blair’s Strategy Unit, writes in Prospect magazine that, instead of spending less on 'obesity, climate change or social exclusion,' British ministers should 'use tough decisions as a way of expressing their values—by switching cash out of fighter planes into stimulating our fledgling electric car industry, for example.'"

Public Sector Productivity in Britain

Spend More, Waste More, Heritage Foundation Foundry, June 23, 2009.

Brown's and Obama's Economics

Brown-onomics?, Contentions, May 29, 2009.