ALEX BRUMMER: Labour and its cut and paste shadow chancellor lack the big idea

Each time that Rachel Reeves repeats her Commons and broadcast mantra, asking the British public if they are better off now than they were 13 years ago, it triggers a memory.

As a US correspondent I was in Cleveland, Ohio on October 28, 1980, at the Jimmy Carter-Ronald Reagan presidential debate, when the former movie star made closing remarks asking the American people: ‘Are you better off now than you were four years ago?’

Reagan’s question, days before Americans went to the polls, is described by presidential historians as the ‘defining moment’ of a campaign that saw the Republican challenger elected in a landslide.

The irony of Reeves’ use of a phrase, coined by an apostle of free market capitalism, should not be missed. 

It once again focuses on Reeves as ‘the cut and paste Chancellor’ after the FT revealed that passages from her recent book ‘The Women Who Made Modern Economics’ had been lifted from Wikipedia without attribution.

Reaganomics: Passages from shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves’s recent book ‘The Women Who Made Modern Economics’ had been lifted from Wikipedia without attribution

There is a critical difference between the way the shadow Chancellor has copied a landmark phrase and the Reagan reality. 

The late president knew where he was going with the economy. His response to Carter’s inept handling of an energy crisis, a great inflation fuelled by union demands and a falling dollar was supply-side economics.

Personal and business tax rates were slashed, on the advice of his economic guru Arthur Laffer, and eventually delivered prosperity and jobs.

When the air traffic controllers tested Reagan’s mettle with an overcooked pay demand and industrial action the president called their bluff. Civilian controllers were fired and the White House replaced them with air force personnel.

The history is interesting because Labour, in spite of all its bluster, had virtually no policy responses to Jeremy Hunt at the dispatch box after the Autumn Statement. 

Reeves regurgitated the Reagan jibe and pointed to the downgrades of growth by the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

In her copycatting of the right-wing president she left out a large part of the economic narrative. 

Yes the Liz Truss episode was chaotic but the idea that it is responsible for the rise in mortgage rates is risible.

As central banks battle inflation the cost of home loans has soared everywhere.

There is no British exceptionalism. What Reeves and Labour cleverly never mention are the three crises which allow her to deploy the ‘are you better off’ question.

These are the inheritance of high borrowing and debt from Gordon Brown following the financial crisis, the £450billion cost of Covid and the energy bailouts after Russia invaded Ukraine.

If Labour had been listened to in the pandemic there would have been more and longer costly lockdowns. 

It was Labour’s nagging about energy bills which contributed to bigger and more universal Government handouts than strictly necessary.

As for growth, no one can be pleased that the OBR is so miserable. An odd element of the forecast is predictions of a 5.6 per cent collapse in business investment next year as higher borrowing bites. 

Maybe there needs to be a transition as companies weigh up the certainty of ‘full expensing’, where companies that invest, pay less tax.

But anticipation of more certain conditions could produce a positive response

One wonders if the OBR underestimates the almost immoveable strength of UK services. The latest S&P/CIPS purchasing managers’ index shows prospects bounced this month and it is up above the critical 50-mark for the first time since July.

New OECD data shows that in the third quarter the UK recorded ‘a marked increase’ in invisibles driven by ‘dynamic trade’ in business services.

Labour may feel it doesn’t need bold policies at present. Its huge lead in the polls, a narrative of a Tory horror show and closing some minor league tax loopholes, which add up too less than one year of business expensing, is all it needs.

Reeves’ City offensive has been effective but, as one seasoned figure noted in the aftermath of the Autumn Statement, there is a lack of big economic guru and thinking at the top.

The fact that Keir Starmer needs to partner with business spinners Brunswick to reach the FTSE 100 good and great (as reported in the Mail of Sunday) speaks volumes. The cupboard is bare.

This post first appeared on Dailymail.co.uk