Labour-saving: Britain's probable next leader

This episode provides an in-depth analysis of the transformation of Britain's Labour Party under the leadership of Keir Starmer, and its implications for the upcoming general election.

1. Labour Party, under Keir Starmer, has significantly transformed from its 2019 electoral defeat.
2. The Economist endorses Labour for its disciplined approach and potential to address economic growth.
3. Labour aims to restore connections with traditional voters and regain seats lost in Northern England and Scotland.
4. The party's internal reforms include changes to its rulebook to centralize leadership control.
5. Labour’s election manifesto focuses on moderate but strategic economic reforms to stimulate growth.

1: Introduction and Background

Keir Starmer’s leadership and the Labour Party's transformation are highlighted. This section sets the stage for a detailed discussion on the party’s evolution and electoral strategy. Jason Palmer: "Shake your chains to earth like dew, which in sleep had fallen on you. Ye are many, they are few."

2: The Economist's Endorsement

The rationale behind The Economist's endorsement of the Labour Party, emphasizing its potential to improve Britain’s economic stance. Matthew Hull House: "Keir Starmer has a clear I have changed the Labour Party, and I will do the same for Westminster."

3: Future Prospects and Challenges

Exploration of the challenges and expectations facing the Labour Party should they win the election, including potential government reforms and economic strategies. Jason Palmer: "The single most important goal of this mission is to get Labour back into power."

1. Stay informed on political developments to understand potential impacts on daily life and the economy.
2. Engage in discussions about political reforms to grasp their implications for local and national governance.
3. Evaluate political promises critically, focusing on their feasibility and alignment with personal and community needs.
4. Consider the historical context of political parties when assessing their current policies and leadership.
5. Participate in electoral processes to influence political outcomes directly.

After 14 years in opposition, Britain’s Labour Party is on track for a comprehensive win in next week’s general election. We profile Keir Starmer, its leader, asking whether his modus operandi can turn the country around, too. Despite the obvious distractions phones represent, Americans want their children to have them in schools (10:50). And auction houses get into the business of “art-based lending” (16:40).

People

Keir Starmer, Jeremy Corbyn, Matthew Hull House, Jason Palmer

Companies

None

Books

None

Guest Name(s):

None

Content Warnings:

None

Matt
Hi, this is Matt and Sean from two black guys with good credit. If you own or operate a business, whether it's a local operation or a global corporation, partnering with bank of America could be your smartest move. By teaming with bank of America, you'll enjoy exclusive digital tools, award winning insights, and business solutions so powerful you'll make every move matter. Position your business to capitalize on opportunity in a moment's notice. Visit bankofamerica.com bankingforbusiness to learn more.

What would you like the power to do? Bank of America NA copyright 2024.

The Economist
The Economist.

Rosie Brehr
Hello, and welcome to the intelligence from the Economist, I'm Rosie Brehr. And I'm Jason Palmer. Every weekday, we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping you world.

Phones in the classroom are disruptive and undermine learning. Schools hate the devices. Children love them. But in America, why is it parents who are particularly keen that their kids carry mobiles. And fine art hasn't been doing so well at auction recently?

The Economist
But don't worry, you can now enjoy your Picasso sketches and make money out of them. If you can't sell it, auction houses are now letting you borrow against it.

First up, though, its one week out from Britains general election, and for the Labour party, thats widely, I mean really, really widely predicted to come out on top. This moment now seems like distant history. Six minutes past five in the morning, and we are now in a position to say that this election of 2019 formally has been won by the Conservatives. In the election five years ago, Labour got trounced. The final result?

A landslide 80 seat maturity for the conservative or Tory party. I feel distraught that we have lost. So many great comrades in parliament, and. I also feel so disappointed. I don't believe that this was a rejection of our policy program or our manifesto.

Labor has now been out of power for 14 years, and in the wilderness for some of that, largely down to its previous leader, a divisive hard left firebrand named Jeremy Corbyn.

Jason Palmer
Shake your chains to earth like dew, which in sleep had fallen on you. Ye are many, they are few.

The Economist
Mister Corbyn's brand of unabashed socialism was popular with a slice of the labor faithful, but it was a mess for the rest of the party. His leadership was dogged by accusations of anti semitism and political infighting, and under him, an unloved labor lost twice just after that pasting in 2019, the Economist wrote, dont expect the Labour party to move back to the center quickly. Five years later, its a markedly more disciplined, more electable party and one man. Can take credit up and down the country. Keir Starmer has a clear I have changed the Labour party, and I will do the same for Westminster.

Matthew Hull House is the economists british politics correspondent. His transformation of the Labour party has indeed been pretty remarkable, and that is partly why the Economist has announced this morning that it will be endorsing the Labour party for the first time since 2005. So, Matthew, before we get to the endorsement point, let's talk about the transformation that Mister Starmer is claiming and go back to what he started with. What was the party like when he began? It's sometimes hard to recall just what a wreck the Labour party was when he took it over.

Jason Palmer
So in the 2019 general election, under Jeremy Corbyn, it won 203 seats. That was its lowest showing since 1935, and that was not necessarily the nadir. There was a report by labor together at a pro stama caucus the following year that said, if you look at the demographic tide, there is no reason why it could not be losing dozens more seats in the next election to come. The party had been riven by crisis over anti semitism. For stamarites, the heart of the problem was that this party had turned inside out.

Corbyn was merely a symptom of a cultural malaise, and that was that. It had come to elevate the views of its members over those of the public. It had become, in their eyes, an expression of virtue, a way for its members to show good things and express their feelings, rather than what it had been founded to do, which would be an instrument of power for the industrial working classes, something that had to get into government and serve their interests. So, in short, Mister Starmer had quite a job to do. How did he do it?

So, from the analysis, there were three things that really followed. One was that he had to get back into power in one term, as they saw it. It had to win back seats in the north of England and Scotland. This idea that was going around in circles, that maybe there was a sort of progressive coalition, that Labour could just lean into the new seats it was winning, and let those other ones sort of slip away, they said, was, you know, fatalistic, and they had to row against it very, very firmly. And the third was that he had to be willing to breach some internal taboos, some internal norms that had historically prioritized part to unity.

The Economist
And so that's the diagnosis of the problem. What's the method? What's the starmer way? There is something of a starmer modus operandi. We think there's a bit of a ratchet approach.

Jason Palmer
He's quite slow to build, to change. He focuses on the really obvious fixes, and as he goes and he encounters more problems, his solutions get more radical. It's sort of inverse of how we typically think politicians operate. The second trait is that he doesn't necessarily narrate what he's doing, at least not in sort of grand speeches. And that means that it can be quite.

Unless you're really sort of watching, it can be quite hard to appreciate just how far he's moving. So one example of that is that, famously, when Tony Blair changed the Labour Party rulebook on clause four, which was this historic commitment to public ownership, you know, he made a huge speech about it. It was a big symbolic moment when Starmer changed Labour's rule book in 2021 to wrest power away from members a little bit. He doesn't even mention it in the speech afterwards. And it means that actually, you know, some people in the party who are losing out of this process don't fully realize quite how far things are moving.

And the third trait, which is something that everybody has noticed, is that he's pretty ideologically dexterous. You know, the single most important goal of this mission is to get labor back into power. He wooed Labor's selectorate, Labor's members, to get this job through a fairly sort of Corbyn like pitch. He then pivots, really, to focus very, very firmly on the voters who had historically voted for the Labour party and then had moved away in 2019. But his supporters would say, well, this is a.

This is a guy who doesn't have rigid views. He's going to look at everything on merits and come to a decision in an open minded way. How does all that translate when we move from changing the Labour party to changing the country? One parallel is that his analysis of what's wrong with the government is a cultural critique. It's not that the state is too large or too small.

It's that it's become sort of self serving and inert, much in the way that the Labour party itself had come to be seen as sort of self serving. And I think it's clear that we're going to have to see this sort of ratchet at work again, because he set himself these enormous missions that Britain is going to achieve the highest sustained productivity growth in the g seven. And yet what he set out in the manifesto for this election, which he terms the first steps, are really pretty nugatory. You know, there are some fairly small changes to the planning code and some fairly small amounts of money that have been set out. So clearly we can see that to get from the first steps to completing missions, he's going to have to become a lot more radical.

The Economist
And so we come with all of that to the economist's endorsement of labor. Let's lift the curtain a little bit. How does the economist come to a decision on that? The way we do it is at the leader meeting, which is where the editorials of the newspaper are debated and discussed. You have three authors putting the case for different political parties, and then there's extensive debate afterwards.

Jason Palmer
The argument put for the Liberal Democrats is that this party is essentially a factory of some quite interesting and innovative ideas, including things like the land value tax, which the economist historically approved of. The case for the Tories is this britney's a moderate, effective centre right that can make the case for markets, for public sector reform. If it is obliterated, which some polls suggest is possible, that task becomes much, much harder. It becomes much, much more vulnerable to, effectively, a takeover by the populist and radical right. It is in Britain's long term interest that there is a successful conservative party.

But these did not prevail. The case for Labour was this. You know, this is not a party which is at the moment fully aligned with the economist's historic principles. It's swinging behind the new Washington consensus, which is skeptical of globalization. It's very keen on industrial strategy.

However, there are two overriding reasons. One is that a job of an election is for people to send a message to their political leaders about what sort of behavior they want to reward and what sort of behaviour they want to punish. And Keir Starmer's remaking of the Labour party into a more credible and moderate force is something that should be rewarded, if only to encourage other parties to follow course. But the single most important factor is that Britain's overwhelming problem, the one that underpins all others, is its fairly weak growth, and that the Labour party, in its current formation, is the best option on offer for cracking that. So the party has said that planning reform will be at the very, very centre of its economic and political strategy.

It wants, and, you know, let's not over egg this, but it wants a moderately closer relationship with the European Union, which has the potential to be good for growth. It has the potential to do sensible things to the tax code because it may come to power with a large mandate on the back of a large majority. The real risk that this is a party that's going to be blown off course, it's going to be too cautious too timid. But they have stated that this is their number one mission and based on the reformation of the party under Sikhistamma, they have earned, we think, the chance to try. Matthew, thank you very much for your time.

The Economist
Thank you for a lot more on Britains next government and the future of the country. Mark your calendar now for our subscriber only event next Friday, July 5 at 01:00 p.m. london time, one day after the election, Matthew will be joined by his brilliant colleagues on the Britain desk to take your questions and discuss whether the election result means that Britain is at last back to normal. Book yourself in and get your questions in early by going to economist.com ukelection event or click the link in the show notes Ryan Reynolds here from mint mobile with the price of just about everything going up during inflation, we thought we'd bring our prices down. So to help us, we brought in a reverse auctioneer, which is apparently a.

Tamara Jilks Bohr
Thing mint mobile unlimited premium wireless how do you get 30 30 biddy get 30 bid to get 20 20 20 20 15 15? Just $15 a month, so give it a try@mintmobile.com. Switch $45 upfront for three months, plus taxes and fees. Promoting for new customers for limited time unlimited more than 40gb per month slows full terms@mintmobile.com. dot.

Rosie Brehr
Okay, I admit it, school used to be a bit boring sometimes, but these days it's quite fun. Kids can message their friends, post videos and play games. Smartphones have made class a lot more entertaining, but they're less good for learning. The debate over how much access young people should have to phones is happening the world over in America. Some schools are simply locking devices away during the day.

Perhaps predictably, many of the kids aren't too happy about it. It was a big problem before. Yeah, they're blowing out of proportion, but. It just feels like they don't trust us or something. Yeah, some parents also have a trust issue.

They want their children to carry phones so they can track them at all times. So what's the answer? Who gets a phone and when? People have been concerned about smartphones in schools for a long time. Tamara Jilks Bohr is the economist us policy correspondent.

Tamara Jilks Bohr
There's been big debates about the role of these smartphones on students mental health and general well being. Two states have passed laws banning cell phone use during instructional time. It's Florida and Indiana, but a number of states are discussing the possibility of passing similar laws. It's interesting because this is a debate that's being had around the world right now about banning phones in schools or limiting their use. But it seems particularly interesting to me in the US, a country where a lot of people don't think you should be allowed to ban guns.

Rosie Brehr
You know, the idea of banning phones seems rather far fetched. It's a really good point to make that connection to guns because, yes, in a country where we really do believe in the freedom to carry guns and also potentially cell phones, that is actually part of the reason why parents want their kids to have cell phones. Many of the parents I spoke with actually mentioned that they want their children to have cell phones in schools because they want to be able to contact them in case of a mass shooting incident. To know that they are okay and to know where they are. Tracking kids in a potential gun situation obviously brings an even greater dimension to the phones debate.

I'm interested in what the teachers and the schools actually said about what they think the problem is with kids having phones. I was actually a school teacher for five years, a couple of years ago, and teachers said basically what we were concerned about back then, which is that students are getting distracted. They are taking extra long breaks in the bathrooms to go through their phones to watch videos. So teachers are really concerned about mainly having to police these phones, but also that kids are not learning as much because they're super distracted throughout the day. How do you think the kids are going to respond to all of this?

Tamara Jilks Bohr
Obviously, the children are not happy with this. Many of the students I spoke with, they wish that they could use the cell phones, some for entertainment purposes, but others were claiming that it was really important for academics using a calculator, being able to look things up, etcetera. But the reality is that these students are getting 50 notifications every school day. That's incredibly disruptive. And they're getting over 200 notifications throughout the entire day if you go into after school and nighttime.

So the students are getting bombarded with these notifications. And as adults, we know what a life was like before all of this, but they don't. So they might be arguing for something that they don't really quite know. The alternative. Have schools actually successfully stopped children using phones at school?

Well, as you can imagine, it's really difficult to ban phones in schools, and the kids are going to find ways around any rule that you give them. So when I spoke to a few students at a middle school in Washington, DC, they talked about, you know, having secret pockets in their backpacks to hide the phones. The students also in some schools, have these pouches that supposedly lock your phone during the school day and can only be unlocked by a magnet. But of course, sometimes those pouches stopped working. And of course, the kids never told anybody that the pouches stopped working.

They discussed having two phones. They discussed a lot of different things to get around this barrier. So I think, just like with anything, any rule you have in school, you're up against the ingenuity of children. So the checking your phone at school is the modern day. Smoking a cigarette behind the bike sheds, then?

Unknown
Absolutely. It's all that and more. What's the answer? Is there any way to satisfy everyone? It's so complicated.

Tamara Jilks Bohr
It's hard because parents want their children to have cell phones during free time, but it's really difficult to manage that for teachers. I think that the answer is, in many ways, just start to go old school. Parents have to just stop giving their kids these phones, and that's going to be incredibly difficult to do if parents also want to be able to contact their children in case of a mass shooting situation or other emergency. So unfortunately, the answer is tricky. I think we're going to have to see families and parents start to get more comfortable in schools, to start to band together with schools, to agree that, you know what?

We are not going to give our children these smartphones and at the very least, give your child a flip phone, a smartwatch, or some other less disruptive device so that you can still stay in contact with the children, but they can't also scroll through YouTube. Tamara, thanks so much. Great to talk to you. Thank you for having me.

Rosie Brehr
Onphilips.com. Ahead of our telephones, I'm here in Mayfair in Phillips headquarters watching a Picasso auction. Carla Subrana Artus is a journalist at the Economist. I'm sitting here in the middle of the room. Got this one started at 16,000, and in like 5 seconds we're at 20,000.

Unknown
It's another jar with Picasso's characteristic face. Wow. 26,028. Most of the action is in the phones. Clearly, everyone is quite tense.

I think it's the last chance she's asking anyone. And so on and so on. Sold. Yeah. 32,000.

Wow.

So investors have long been able to console themselves that if their paintings fall in value, at least they will have something nice on their wall. But now they can also console themselves that they will have something to borrow against. There has recently been a boom in art secured loans, which were until recently only available sort of as a premium service to the wealthiest clients of private banks. Now, auction houses and boutique lenders are also becoming more involved. So, according to Deloitte, these outfits have increased their lending by 120% since 2019.

So it's really quite remarkable how lending has risen. So rather than keeping your Picasso as something to sell when you need some money, what you're saying is that people are actually borrowing against the Picassos or other fine art on their walls to secure loans, is that right? Yes, exactly, Rosie. So this is happening in part because of developments in the art market. So when central banks started increasing their interest rates in 2022, banks tightened their lending standards.

So I spoke to a lot of people in the industry who told me that minimum loan requirements have gone up from 1 million to $10 million. So they really tightened their standards a lot. And then what happened was that this opened up a gap in the market. And auction houses and specialized lenders saw this opportunity and they saw their demand increase by a lot. But another factor was that art prices have actually fallen quite a lot since 2022, especially for the most sought after pieces like Picasso, Zorbaskia.

And according to UBS, prices for top art fell by 40% last year. So basically what that meant was that collectors preferred to leverage their art instead of selling it. And a lot of the new demand was from young collectors. I'm really surprised to hear you talk about young people. It's definitely not my stereotypical collector in my mind.

Rosie Brehr
Did you see young people at the auction you went to? Yeah, that surprised me a lot as well. There were a lot of young people at the auction I went to, and they were actually bidding for the art quite a lot. So it is a new development that is impacting the market. And Christie's told me that they're seeing a huge rise in demand from younger people.

Unknown
It's mostly younger people inheriting from their parents or their grandparents. And surveys show this as well. Deloitte does a huge survey every two years, and in the latest one, which was released last year, 85% of collectors under 35 said that financial considerations were a big reason to buy art, and that was at the highest level ever since the survey began. And, Carla, how are auction houses responding to this shift in demand? Well, they're actually competing quite aggressively with banks, which is quite surprising.

So the main front where they're trying to. To compete with is interest rates. So auction houses charge much higher rates than banks, and that puts them at a disadvantage. And this is because banks are financed by deposits, which are very cheap. But auction houses have to tap private markets to lend, and that's very expensive.

So now what they're trying to do is lower their financing requirements to make their loans more attractive. And so Sotheby's is leading this trend. They recently announced an asset backed security worth $700 million made up of hardback loans, and the loans include more than 2000 works of art of the finest art in the world, like Rothko or Basquiat. But while this is a good idea, I think the problem is that very few other specialized lenders will be able to replicate this because Sotheby's was able to issue an asset backed security because they have very detailed information on the performance of their loans stretching back 15 years. But not every institution has such detailed information, so it will be quite hard to replicate.

Rosie Brehr
Fascinating to think of auction houses as banks, but we know that the art market is no stranger to fads and fashions that dazzles for a while and then fade. Do you think this trend is going to last? So I do think that there is a limit as to how much the market can grow. First of all, because once art prices begin to rise again, maybe collectors will just prefer to sell their art so there will be more activity on that front. But I think that a big reason is that that art is a very risky investment.

Unknown
So lenders only accept as collateral paintings from the most renowned artists. So that limits how much the market can grow. But in any case, if you're lucky enough to have a Picasso to hand, a new way of unlocking funds has opened up. Thank you so much Carla. No Picassos, but great to speak to you.

Thank you, Rosie. To hear more on the business of art, this week's money talk show is dedicated to the art market. The episode explores how an item is actually valued and the large role of trust in the market. If you're already a subscriber, go right ahead and listen. If not, you'll need to sign up to Economist podcast Plus, the link is in the show notes.

The Economist
That's all for this episode of the Intelligence. We'll see you back here tomorrow.

Ryan Reynolds
Seven in ten full time workers would consider switching jobs for better benefits. Benefit strategies are crucial to building a competitive advantage, but how can employers meet diverse priorities across industries and demographics? Benefits 2.0 from economist impact supported by Nuveen, a TIAA company, explores how benefits empower individuals, elevate companies, and drive the us economy. Search economist Impact benefits 2.0 to learn more sponsored by Nuveen, a TIAA company.