Compass, the think tank that claims to be non-party-based and left-of-centre, published a new 230-page report yesterday titled 'Ending Business as Usual: Policy Options for a Progressive Government'.
I do not claim to have read every word within it. I did not need to do so to suggest that it is profoundly disappointing and anything but what it claims to be.
In fact, it is a set of proposals from think tanks, all of whom, when it comes to economics, appear to accept the existing neoliberal economic framework. So, too, does its editor, Prof. Michael Jacobs, who, like me, is an Emeritus Professor at the University of Sheffield. Michel came to prominence as an advisor to Gordon Brown, whose approach to financial regulation helped lead to 2008, and you do not get much more neoliberal than that.
Let me acknowledge, though, that some of the proposals in the paper, on issues such as employment, social care, housing, nationalising water and the care economy, might be of merit. However, none of that matters because the report assumes that the neoliberal architecture of finance will stay in place, and so, to be blunt, whatever is suggested on other policy issues will not happen within the economic framework the report adopts.
How do I know that this framing remains in use? Even the preface makes clear that some of the proposals made “may not be affordable” whilst stressing that it offers a menu rather than a programme that could necessarily be implemented. That framing matters enormously.
Elsewhere, in the chapter on economic policy, central bank independence is not challenged. Instead, it is suggested that aspects of the Bank of England mandate should be reformed, especially around quantitative tightening, while noting that requiring the Bank to do this might be hard, as if accepting that the Bank is, in effect, beyond democratic control. That is not a view I think to be progressive. I think it indicates acceptance of current power relationships and all that is implicit within them, and that nothing can be done ot address them.
At the same time, there is discussion of the need to reduce inflation to "give the government more fiscal space for spending and (if necessary) borrowing." It is apparent, as a result, that it is believed that tax funds spending, which it cannot as a matter of fact, and that borrowing does likewise, when that also cannot be the case.
There is throughout the report, including in the section on tax contributed by Tax Justice UK, whose work I find a continual source of technical disappointment, no hint of any understanding of modern monetary theory, or anything related to it, which might be one explanation for there being not a single reference in the entire work to anything that I have ever written.
Instead, the framing is entirely within the existing neoliberal economic hierarchy of power and, as such, no consideration appears to be given to finding an appropriate answer to the question "How are you going to pay for it?" to which the proper reply is, of course, "By doing it, if the resources to do so are available."
There are a great many other weaknesses. Devolution is discussed, but not independence for the three nation-states that are currently members of the so-called U, but which have elected governments that reject that position. Imperialism is, it seems, alive and well amongst these progressives as a result. Instead, it is made very clear that each country must remain aligned with England. The English exceptionalism of the author of the section where this is stated is very clear, and so very Gordon Brown in style. One day those who claim to be on the left might learn that being patronising is inconsistent with their stated belief, but not yet, it seems, in the case of Compass, which permitted this to be published.
In summary, this report wants to end many of the consequences of business as usual without ending the economic thinking that makes business as usual possible.
As a result, some well-intentioned, social policy-oriented think tanks have wasted their time writing proposals for this paper that, because of its economic, taxation, and fiscal framing, could never create the framework needed to deliver those policies. That is because those who wrote the economic architecture of this paper still believe that anything government might do will always be dependent on its ability to tax and borrow, all of which they think is constrained by the willingness of the City, the wealthy and business to cooperate with those social policies, the need for which those groups deny. As a consequence, I suggest the socially inclined think tanks in question need to seriously rethink who they work with on economic policy.
At the same time, the likes of Compass, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation (which is notoriously LibDem in its thinking), the New Economics Foundation and Tax Justice UK need to realise that you cannot end the consequences of business as usual without sweeping away the power structures that make it possible. A little political managerialism cannot achieve that goal, but that is essentially what the report proposes. So very Starmerite then.
Why do I think this problem exists? It seems to me that all involved in the economics sections of this report have embraced their deeply internalised neoliberalism. As a result, they lack the curiosity to see that another world is possible and within our reach. As such, I suspect most of them are victims of their red economic education, which leaves them, like the prisoners in Plato's cave, sitting watching the shadows on the back wall which they think to be reality, not daring to turn around to see what or who is controlling that image they see, and that their real task is to imagine that they might be those who do so.
They have, as a result, failed those who want to create real change, whose work is included in the report, by failing to imagine a world in which the changes those thinkers desire might be possible.
In doing so, they highlight the malaise in economic thinking on much of the so-called left, little of which answers the questions the failure of neoliberalism poses, because they accept neoliberalism as the architecture of the solution when that architecture has created the failure.
That problem runs through this report, and it is why nothing it suggests will happen, and I am genuinely sorry about some of that.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Well I guess we are not surprised. These days what we might consider left of centre groups/think tanks etc are invariably supporters of or consider that the neoliberal framework is the natural state of affairs and we have to work within it. Which means of course real change is not on the agenda!
George Monbiot’s term ‘junk tanks’ might apply.
Ending Business as Usual: Policy Options for a Progressive Government’. I scanned it, pitched it to my tame/trained AI – same view. The title is worthy of Orwell, the 1st part contradicting the second and second (policy options) contradicting the third (progressive gov? ha!). Perhaps it needs to be filed under “pornography” i.e. the writings of whores. Certainly Compass in writing this piece of trash seems to have prostituted themselves – perhaps they hope by doing so they will get more money from ..etc Very much akin to dressing up and sitting in front of a street facing window with a red light on.
I do hope I have offended Compass with this comparison. I meant to.
……..and I’m with you every inch of the way.
This is tedious nonsense…….how many times have they got to dress up the same old bollix. They really do think we are stupid don’t they?
Might the modal socio-economic backgrounds of Compass members affect the contents of their publications?
According to AI Overview they are from the professional managerial class, with higher education and live in affluent areas and have been shielded from the material deprivation of the working class.
”They are beneficiaries of market driven wealth accumulation.” (Same source)
However, they are same source reportedly affected by workplace surveillance, asset inflation and chronic status anxiety.
Thank you for posting a prompt response to the Compass paper. It seemed either unaware of your thinking, or (more likely) inexplicably opposed to it. I spotted some interesting ideas, but wondered why your published arguments were ignored.
There was not a single reference to me in the work.
Michael Jacobs is not a fan of my work. I admiot the feeling is reciprocated.
Two words that came to mind, as I read the above –
“affordable”
and
“do-able”
– and the very different ways you and Compass might define and differentiate them.
As for Gordon Brown, who was (the first) student Rector when I was at Edinburgh Uni, I have always felt his strong Scots Presbyterian social conscience was constrained by his neoliberalism, causing him much inner turmoil, and prompting his regular moral outbursts. If only it had gone the other way, we could have had action rather than anger.
Perhaps there is a glimmer of hope for the NEF – their new Chief Economist is Prof Thibault Laurentjoye who produced the currency options report for the Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales and is producing the currency report for an independent Scotland for the Scottish Currency Group. As you are aware, Richard, his report will be presented and discussed at the SCG Conference in October
I will live in hope.
It has had some dire economists in the past – James Meadway and Alfie Stirling (who contributed to this Compass report), amongst them.
In better news (?) I am starting to think I’m seeing glimmers of the household analogy edifice fraying a bit (sorry for the mess of mixed metaphors?!). There was a hint of recognition around these principles in an interview with Ed Conway on LBC last night (or am I being too hopeful?).
Meanwhile I did write in to Channel 4 as its economics editor and Matt Frei again repeated the tax-funds-spending nonsense… it’s so disappointing.
In another ‘meanwhile’, if Trump really can pay every US household $5000 in a bribe to swing the elections, doesn’t that just prove the case that when governments want to spend, they can (however recklessly – so I appreciate it’s not the most constructive example).
Thank you
Haven’t look at Compass yet, but did catch Michael Jacobs on the radio not so long ago mentioning some things government could do – and thought at the time he and you might have a useful conversation – and thought even more so – when it was apparent he was also at Sheffield.<p>
Has he ever been prepared to discuss whether government is like a household?<p>
Surely he must have thought beyond that – given Keynes ‘anything we can actually do we can afford’, and what govt did in 2008 and 2020-21?<p>
His website says : ‘ My research focuses on what might be meant by a post-neoliberal ‘paradigm shift’ in economic theory, policy and public discourse. ‘ <p>
So he is ‘post neoliberal’??? Would you / he be prepared to debate ‘post neoliberalism? Presumably not.
Few at Sheffield would, I think, recognise that research.
The Compass report is a bit of a hotch-potch containing some good ideas (as well as some downright silly ones), but you are right that it is very weak on economics. Indeed, the lack of consideration of Modern Monetary Theory is a weakness throughout most political discussion on the left.
Having said that, and though the basic mantra that we can afford everything we can do is absolutely right, there are many things we would like, but cannot do ourselves. Governments cannot simply issue money to purchase tropical foodstuffs (or American weapons systems!) without risking a destabilising fall in the value of our currency.
We cannot sweep away the global casino in a single messianic conversion to MMT. Instead, we have to proceed with iron determination, steadily ripping away the tendrils of neoliberalism a few branches at a time. Undoing Gordon Brown’s catastrophic and unnecessary error in making the Bank of England largely independent would surely be the first place to start?
I will be writing about this, but I agree with quite a lot of what you have to say.
A majority of people in any field are always going to have their brains captured by the dominant intellectual paradigm. Which they are then unable to see through or beyond, or imagine anything different. We have to remember that large, complex, successful societies existed entirely without money, for example the Incas, being organised and bound together by completely different beliefs, values, principles and practices. There’s nothing inevitable or inescapable about neoliberal capitalism, and it’s badly failing us all.
Agreed
Thank you for reviewing this document really helpful. I’m starting to think of this as the latest iteration of class war. And boy are the wealthy winning. They have really struck gold here.
In a comment to your earlier blog
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2026/08/05/the-capacity-to-destroy-value-inherent-in-late-stage-capitalism-knows-few-limits/
in which you made the case for the Government preventing the Bank of England from raising interests rates in response to inflation caused by increases in oil prices, I said I would send your blog verbatim to my MP, a Lib Dem. She has now replied. In her reply she totally agrees with everything you said about the causes of inflation and that raising interest rates is not the right thing to do in this situation. However, she states:
“However, I do not believe the answer is for the Government to direct the Bank of England’s individual interest rate decisions. Liberal Democrats will stand firmly behind the operational independence of the Bank of England, as we have when that independence has come under political attack.That independence matters because monetary policy should not be determined according to the immediate political interests of whichever Government happens to be in office. Confidence that decisions on interest rates are taken independently is important for the credibility of the UK’s economic institutions. Political interference could itself create greater uncertainty and ultimately make borrowing more expensive”.
Instead she argues for greater integration with the EU and reducing reliance on international energy markets as solutions to our economic woes. How do you get these people to live in the real world and not some fantasy version?
I wish I could answer that
You cannot agree with my blog and then support BoE independence. The two are incompatible.
The neoliberals will harm a great many people before they admit their stupidity.
I’ve now read some of the Compass report. There are a lot of good proposals but I think you’re right, Richard, that it’s insufficiently radical. It’s a step forward from “Plan B”, which I edited for Compass in 2011 (my views have shifted a lot since then) but not a large enough step forward. In addition to your concerns about the monetary and fiscal framework Compass are working in, I worry that they believe Andy Burnham is a far more radical politician than he actually is. Burnham talks a good fight but to me he seems to be largely hype, with not much substance. Ed Miliband’s recent announcement on sanctions for Israeli settlers in the West Bank is a good example – a step in the right direction but fundamentally weak tea. Unless and until the UK government implements full BDS measures regarding Israel and uses the term “genocide” to describe what’s happening in Gaza, they are falling short of the minimum we should expect from a progressive government.
Howard
I agree. Some of the proposals are good. It is the economics that fails this report.
And we agree on Burnham.
Richard