Connect with us

News

Labour has a classic first act problem

Published

on

Labour has a classic first act problem

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Governments are like plays: if the third act is unsatisfactory, the problem can usually be traced back to the first. Britain’s new(ish) Labour government is a case in point.

Labour’s first act problem lies in the decision the party leadership made in opposition to rule out any increase in income tax, national insurance or value added tax. Everything it has done in the four months since entering office, and everything it does for the next five years, will in one way or another be distorted by those pledges.

While the party’s focus groups consistently find that the condition of the UK’s public services in general and the NHS in particular matter more to their re-election hopes than anything else, its tax pledges place hard limits on how much can be spent on those services.

Advertisement

As a consequence, and in order to fulfil Labour’s ambitions, businesses have to take a greater share of the strain, with all the negative implications that has for the UK’s already sluggish economic growth. Some of the policies involved are particularly ill-timed. For instance, Britain has made its rules on non-domiciled high earners from overseas less attractive at precisely the point at which the country faces a generational opportunity to attract talent looking for somewhere else to go following the election of Donald Trump in the US.

In some ways, it’s not a good idea to over-intellectualise about why Labour are raising taxes in this way. The shared lie in British politics for the best part of a decade now has been that you can have excellent public services for the many funded by taxes on the few. Mitt Romney was unable to convince a much more naturally pro-business electorate that corporations are in fact people, and while that argument is no less correct in the UK, it has even less hope of landing any time soon.  

But two measures are worth thinking about in light of another promise made by both Labour and the Conservative opposition: to reduce the UK’s net immigration statistics. These are the souped-up national minimum wage and the rise in employers’ national insurance contributions. Taken together, they represent significant new costs on hiring people — other than in the public sector, which will be exempt from the increase in NICs.

Increasing the cost of employment is generally a bad move with plenty of negative externalities — unless, that is, you think that the British public won’t bear greater levels of immigration or that we actually need to see net decreases. The former is the dominant position in the Labour party. The latter is the official position of the Reform party and becoming more widely held among Conservatives.

If you believe that, then you are no longer in the business of working out how best to attract talent. Rather, you are in the business of working out how to deploy your current labour force differently.

Advertisement

You absolutely do want to disincentivise hiring someone to work in an Amazon warehouse or at a supermarket checkout so that you can fill vacancies in the social care sector or the NHS without recourse to further immigration. You do want the restaurant and hospitality sector to struggle and to shrink in order to free up additional labour market capacity for the state. You want fewer people in the private sector in general in order to be able to get by with a falling number of working age people and the current level of state provision — even more so if you want to maintain or increase the current level of financial support for the retired. This, again, is the position of both the Labour government and the Conservative opposition, which opposed even the relatively trivial measure to means test the winter fuel allowance (a Tory policy as recently as 2017).

Now, it’s true to say that there are some positive externalities here: a supermarket that invests in a self-service checkout with a skilled tradesperson to repair it is a good proposition. And the irony is that all of these measures have been what Conservative backbenchers have long claimed to want, only to discover that when they are implemented by Labour ministers they became repugnant.

There’s a lesson here for both the government and the opposition. If the prospect of squeezing out private sector jobs in order to keep the standard of public service provision up and the number of immigrants down is so unpleasant, then something needs to change. One or both of those impossible promises is going to have to be traded away, openly and explicitly. Failing that, both sides need to relax, stop worrying and learn to love Rachel Reeves’ Budget.

stephen.bush@ft.com

 

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

News

The architecturally significant houses destroyed in L.A.'s fires

Published

on

The architecturally significant houses destroyed in L.A.'s fires

Los Angeles has Frank Gehry’s glorious Walt Disney Concert Hall, the space-age wonder of the LAX Theme Building and the stack-of-vinyl needle drop that is the Capitol Records building. For some design geeks, however, the heart and soul of L.A.’s architecture resides not just in its museums and office towers but also in its exalted, often otherworldly houses.

Those homes — especially those designed by Midcentury greats such as John Lautner, Richard Neutra, Ray Kappe, and Charles and Ray Eames — have been the obsession of those tracking the threats posed by firestorms laying waste to the wooded canyons and grassy hillsides that are the scenic backdrops for these residences.

Beloved landmarks by Frank Lloyd Wright, Rudolph Schindler and others stand outside of the immediate fire threat, but other notable houses have not been so lucky. Here’s a partial accounting of the confirmed losses:

Zane Grey Estate, Altadena: This home, with elements of Spanish, Mission and Mediterranean Revival design on 1.2 acres west of Lake Avenue, was built by architects Myron Hunt and Elmer Grey in 1907 for Chicago business machine manufacturer Arthur Herbert Woodward. At the time of its construction, it was called the first fire-proof structure in Altadena because it was built of reinforced concrete. (Woodward’s wife had lived through the devastating 1903 Iroquois Theater fire in Chicago, which erupted during a performance, killing more than 600.) The author Zane Grey bought the home in 1920, and he and his wife built a 3,500-square floor addition, including a library and office where Grey used to write. The 7,240-square-foot home was put on the market for about $4 million in 2020 and was listed as having eight bedrooms, four bathrooms, a commercial kitchen with a 15-foot ceiling, as well as a main kitchen, wine cellar and massive basement. Original cast-iron sconces, iron handrails and chandeliers remained in the house, which is on the National Register of Historic Places.

The Andrew McNally House: Architect Frederick L. Roehrig built this Queen Anne-style mansion for Rand McNally Publishing Co-founder and President Andrew McNally in 1887. McNally paid Roehrig $15,000 to design the mansion at East Mariposa Street and Santa Rosa Avenue, in an area that would soon be called Millionaire’s Row. The home had a three-story rotunda with views of the San Gabriel Mountains, and McNally kept a private railway car there. He had a gardener who nurtured the deodar cedars along a part of Santa Rosa that became known as Christmas Tree Lane.

Advertisement

The Keeler House: In 1990 modernist architect Ray Kappe remodeled a home for jazz singer Anne Keeler and her then-husband, Gordon Melcher. The 4,142-square-foot cantilevered post-and-beam structure, nestled in a woodsy hillside with canyon and coastline views, went on the market for $12 million in April. With four bedrooms and three bathrooms, the house had walls and floors of concrete complemented by a palette of redwood, teak, fir and glass block. Kappe founded the Southern California Institute of Architecture in 1972 and died in 2019 at age 92.

Janes Village: This cluster of historic English cottages was built between 1924 and 1926 by architect Elisha P. Janes (known professionally as E.P. Janes). Janes built at least 270 English- and Spanish-style cottages in the area. These were mostly single-story stucco-finished homes with six rooms, arranged in one of four floor plans and priced to be accessible to the middle class.

Gregory Ain’s Park Planned homes: Designed in 1948 by Ain with the help of the era’s premier modernist landscape architect, Garrett Eckbo, this strip of 28 Midcentury Modern homes was built as part of a social experiment conceived by a modernist architect focused on cost-effective, prefabricated design for working people. The area was created to look like a park with no front fences and continuous landscaping. The homes had side-facing garages and interior courtyards and glass walls, making them feel a bit like mini estates.

Bridges House: Anyone who has driven down Sunset Boulevard toward the coast will remember the Brutalist Bridges House, by architect Robert Bridges. After working on homes including his own, Bridges became a professor of real estate finance at the USC Marshall School of Business, where he is professor emeritus. His striking home was perched above the boulevard, its wood and glass cantilevered over a concrete base.

Will Rogers’ home: The actor’s ranch house, part of Will Rogers State Historic Park, was destroyed in the Palisades fire. In the 1920s Rogers built a 31-room residence with 11 bathrooms, a guesthouse, a golf course, stables and a corral on about 360 acres. In 1944 the compound and grounds became a park and museum after his widow, Betty, donated them to the state. “The Rogers family is devastated by the loss of the California ranch and the overwhelming loss of the community,” Jennifer Rogers-Etcheverry, the actor’s great-granddaughter, said in a statement. “Our hearts go out to all those neighbors who have lost their homes.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

News

Tulsa Massacre Was a ‘Coordinated, Military-Style Attack,’ Federal Report Says

Published

on

Tulsa Massacre Was a ‘Coordinated, Military-Style Attack,’ Federal Report Says

The Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921, in which a prosperous Black neighborhood in Oklahoma was destroyed and up to 300 people were killed, was not committed by an uncontrolled mob but was the result of “a coordinated, military-style attack” by white citizens, the Justice Department said in a report released Friday.

The report, stemming from an investigation announced in September, is the first time that the federal government has given an official, comprehensive account of the events of May 31 and June 1, 1921, in the Tulsa neighborhood of Greenwood. Although it formally concluded that, more than a century later, no person alive could be prosecuted, it underscored the brutality of the atrocities committed.

“The Tulsa Race Massacre stands out as a civil rights crime unique in its magnitude, barbarity, racist hostility and its utter annihilation of a thriving Black community,” Kristen Clarke, assistant attorney general for civil rights, said in a statement. “In 1921, white Tulsans murdered hundreds of residents of Greenwood, burned their homes and churches, looted their belongings and locked the survivors in internment camps.”

No one today could be held criminally responsible, she said, “but the historical reckoning for the massacre continues.”

The report’s legal findings noted that if contemporary civil rights laws were in effect in 1921, federal prosecutors could have pursued hate crime charges against both public officials and private citizens.

Advertisement

Though considered one of the worst episodes of racial terror in U.S. history, the massacre was relatively unknown for decades: City officials buried the story, and few survivors talked about the massacre.

The Justice Department began its investigation under the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, which allows the agency to examine such crimes resulting in death that occurred before 1980. Investigators spoke with survivors and their descendants, looked at firsthand accounts and examined an informal review by the Justice Department’s Bureau of Investigation, the precursor to the F.B.I. In that 1921 report, the agency asserted that the riot was not the result of “racial feeling,” and suggested that Black men were responsible for the massacre.

The new 123-page report corrects the record, while detailing the scale of destruction and its aftermath. The massacre began with an unfounded accusation. A young Black man, Dick Rowland, was being held in custody by local authorities after being accused of assaulting a young white woman.

According to the report, after a local newspaper sensationalized the story, an angry crowd gathered at the courthouse demanding that Mr. Rowland be lynched. The local sheriff asked Black men from Greenwood, including some who had recently returned from military service, to come to the courthouse to try to prevent the lynching. Other reports suggest the Black neighbors offered to help but were turned away by the sheriff.

The white mob viewed attempts to protect Mr. Rowland as “an unacceptable challenge to the social order,” the report said. The crowd grew and soon there was a confrontation. Hundreds of residents (some of whom had been drinking) were deputized by the Tulsa Police. Law enforcement officers helped organize these special deputies who, along with other residents, eventually descended on Greenwood, a neighborhood whose success inspired the name Black Wall Street.

Advertisement

The report described the initial attack as “opportunistic,” but by daybreak on June 1, “a whistle blew, and the violence and arsons that had been chaotic became systematic.” According to the report, up to 10,000 white Tulsans participated in the attack, burning or looting 35 city blocks. It was so “systematic and coordinated that it transcended mere mob violence,” the report said.

In the aftermath, the survivors were left to rebuild their lives with little or no help from the city. The massacre’s impact, historians say, is still felt generations later.

In the years since the attack, survivors and their descendants and community activists have fought for justice. Most recently, a lawsuit seeking reparations filed on behalf of the last two known centenarian survivors was dismissed by Oklahoma justices in June. In recent years, Tulsa has excavated sections of a city cemetery in search of the graves of massacre victims. And in 2024, the city created a commission to study the harms of the atrocity and recommend solutions. The results are expected in the coming weeks.

Continue Reading

News

The strange world of the Euro-Gulf 

Published

on

The strange world of the Euro-Gulf 

Stay informed with free updates

Waiting for the Tube, I see a poster for an upmarket gym chain. Locations? “City of London. High Street Kensington. Dubai.” What a shame to choose a setting that is so disfigured with bad taste and clueless expats. Still, the City and Dubai branches must be first-rate.  

Soon after, I am in Doha, and again the Euro-Gulf linkage is inescapable. The emir of Qatar is back from a state visit to Britain, where the hosts were angling for a trade deal. Swiss-headquartered Fifa has just given the World Cup hosting rights to Saudi Arabia. Even in skyscraper-free Muscat, where alleys that might have been rationalised elsewhere in the Gulf twist freely behind the corniche, three restaurants in my hotel are outposts of Mayfair brands. 

What a shame the word “Eurabia” is taken. And by such cranks. (It is a far-right term for a supposed plot to Islamise Europe.) Because we are going to need a word for this relationship. The Arabian peninsula has what Europe lacks: space, natural wealth and the resulting budget surpluses to invest in things. For its part, Europe has “soft” assets that Gulf states must acquire, host or emulate to carve out a post-oil role in the world. This isn’t the Gulf’s deepest external connection. Not while 38 per cent of people in the UAE and a quarter in Qatar are Indian. But it might be the most symbiotic, if I understand that word correctly. 

Advertisement

True, the US has a defence presence in all six Gulf Cooperation Council states. This includes the Saudi footprint that Osama bin Laden wasn’t super-stoked about. But everyday contact? America is a 15-hour flight away. Its soft assets are either harder to buy or less coveted. Its citizens have little fiscal incentive to live in tax havens, as Uncle Sam charges them at least some of the difference.  

In the 1970s, when Opec profits gushed through London, Anthony Burgess wrote a dystopia in which grand hotels became “al-Klaridges” and “al-Dorchester”. What a mental jolt it was for even the worldliest Europeans to see — we mustn’t pussyfoot around this — non-white people with more money than them. Still, they could condescend to the Gulf as being no place to live. Half a century on, their grandchildren would call that copium. In fact, their grandchildren might literally live there for economic opportunities. (Al-Dorado?) As a banker friend explains it, the time zones allow you to sleep late, trade the European markets, then dine late, so it is the young ones who do a Gulf stint, not the burnouts who are my age. 

For how long, though? It is the sheer unlikelihood of this tryst, between a universal rights culture and monarchical absolutism, between a mostly secular continent and the home peninsula of an ancient faith, that distinguishes it from anything I can think of. A relationship can be both necessary and untenable. It wouldn’t take much — some intra-GCC violence, say, which seemed close in 2017 — for Europe’s exposure to the Gulf to age as badly as its former openness to Russia. If Abu Dhabi-owned Manchester City are found to have committed financial chicanery, a chunk of Premier League history will be tainted. Because it is “just” sport, I sense people are underprepared for the backlash. 

And it is parochial to assume that the relationship could only ever break down on one end. It is the Gulf side that has to make the awkwardest cultural adjustments. Because Europeans associate 1979 with Iran and perhaps with Margaret Thatcher, they sometimes pass over the seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca by zealots who thought the House of Saud had grown soft on western habits. Governments in the region assuredly don’t forget.  

How far a place can liberalise without tripping a cultural wire occupies (and is answered differently in) each state, or emirate. Everyone is very nice to “Mister Janan” in his Doha hotel. But the metal scanners that must be passed on each re-entry to the building stand as a reminder of the stakes here. I wonder if Europe and the Gulf throw so much into their liaison out of a niggling doubt that it can last. 

Advertisement

Email Janan at janan.ganesh@ft.com

Find out about our latest stories first — follow FT Weekend on Instagram and X, and sign up to receive the FT Weekend newsletter every Saturday morning

Continue Reading

Trending