Annunziata Rees-Mogg, is Head of Communications for Popular Conservatism.
There was something revealing about John Healey’s speech on Monday. At a moment when Britain desperately needs an economic strategy, the Chancellor offered something closer to economic cognitive therapy: retraining us to believe that if growth feels possible, it will follow.
We heard about growth, investment, innovation, skills, devolution and “hope”, alongside promises to cut red tape and encourage investment.
But where is the plan?
Britain does not lack politicians who say growth is desirable. It lacks an economic framework that supports businesses to invest, entrepreneurs to take risks and capital to choose this country over another.
Government can facilitate growth by removing barriers, but it cannot create prosperity by simply moving money around the economy. Healey’s problem is not insufficient hope; it is that his speech offered little evidence that he understands what makes growth happen – he was like a gardener hoping for rain without thought of getting a watering can.
As the economy falters, family finances struggle, businesses face high employment costs, high taxation, uncompetitive energy costs and ever-growing regulation, understanding the problem – and providing solutions – matters. Investors need confidence that the rewards for taking risks will not simply be taxed or regulated away. But Healey offered no compelling answer to the central question: why should a business invest its next pound or dollar in Britain?
Contrast this with Kemi Badenoch’s appointment of Andrew Griffith as Shadow Chancellor.
Griffith has run businesses. That should not be remarkable in a Shadow Chancellor. Under this government, it is. After more than two decades in major companies, including C-suite roles at Sky, he understands the environment in which investment decisions are made. When he talks about investment, capital, regulation and the private sector, he draws on experience rather than repeating words supplied by civil servants or political advisers.
The distinction is therefore larger than one between two politicians. Healey talks about growth as an aspiration; Griffith understands it as a process. Healey offers more government interventions; Griffith understands that growth depends on businesses being free to choose to invest.
But Griffith’s appointment will matter only if the Conservatives use it to sharpen the economic programme they have begun to set out. That starts with the recognition that Britain cannot tax and spend its way to prosperity. The state must become smaller, more disciplined and more focused.
As the Conservatives have rightly pointed out, welfare is one area desperate for reform. A benefits system should protect people who genuinely cannot work, but it should not make inactivity more attractive than employment or place an ever-greater burden on those who do. Cutting the benefits bill is about fairness, better incentives and concentrating public money on those who need it most.
The same principle applies to net zero. The Conservatives should build on their existing policy of scrapping the net zero 2050 target, by ending costly and ineffective mandates, removing unaffordable subsidies, and ensuring environmental policy does not drive industry, jobs and investment overseas.
A credible plan must also recognise the changing national security situation. Defence spending is not simply another departmental item; it is a core responsibility of government. Increasing it is both a strategic necessity and an economic test: it requires identifying genuine priorities, eliminating waste elsewhere and explaining how commitments will be funded.
Savings from welfare reform, a more affordable environmental policy and a more efficient state should not all be spent – over £100bn in debt interest each year is unsustainable and unaffordable. Some of the savings should reduce borrowing and restore confidence in the public finances; the remainder should support tax reductions that improve incentives to work, invest and grow.
The Conservative argument is straightforward: cut spending and share the savings between deficit reduction and tax reduction.
Tax cuts funded by credible savings can strengthen the economy. Reducing the deficit would create room for future action; cutting taxes would allow people and businesses to retain more of what they earn and invest, making both earning and investing in the UK more attractive.
Conservatives must also learn from the wider political debate. Robert Jenrick, Reform UK’s Treasury spokesman, announced appealing ideas at the party’s conference last week. But appealing ideas are not enough, any more than hope is. Policies that sound attractive but do not deliver results are precisely the danger Conservatives must avoid.
The Tories cannot simply assemble a list of things voters would like to hear and call it an economic plan. They must explain how the economy works, how each commitment will create benefits and how it can be paid for.
Lower taxes should be presented not as a giveaway but as an incentive to work, invest, innovate and employ. Deregulation should allow productive businesses to get on with making, producing and growing. Government spending must be closely scrutinised because every pound ultimately comes from taxpayers or future taxpayers.
Economic freedom is not an abstract principle. It allows a sole trader to employ their first worker, an entrepreneur to start and grow an enterprise, a manufacturer to expand and an investor to decide to put money into Britain rather than elsewhere.
That is the opportunity presented by Griffith’s appointment. He has the experience and principles to make the case, but must now turn them into a coherent Conservative policy vision: lower taxes funded by real savings, cheaper energy, less regulation, stronger defence, sound public finances and a state focused on ensuring the right conditions for wealth creation.
Healey’s speech was supposed to provide Labour’s answer to Britain’s economic predicament. Instead, it offered warm words about hope when businesses and families need certainty. Griffith described it as “policy-light”, arguing that it failed to provide the direction needed – and he was not wrong.
Markets and investors may react badly to negativity, but they are not warmed by inexplicable optimism. They assess taxation, regulation, productivity, energy costs, political stability and the expected return on capital.
They look for credibility. Above all, they look for a clear direction with a plan.
The Conservatives now have an opportunity to provide one. Griffith’s appointment gives them someone with the experience and economic principles to craft it well. Welfare reform, scrapping the net zero 2050 target, higher defence spending and savings divided between tax cuts and deficit reduction can form its foundations.
But foundations are not enough. The Conservatives must explain the choices, show the sums and make the case for economic freedom with confidence.
Britain does not need politicians telling us they have a good feeling about the economy. It needs politicians who understand how to make the economy good again – and have a solid plan to make it happen.