Stop worrying about inflation

It will go away but the danger of deflation remains.

It still looks a little early to me for the majority to swing and it would bring down a torrent of criticism on the Bank's head. But if not this week, then May, when the Bank will have the benefit of first-quarter GDP figures as well as other data, is beginning to look like a racing certainty.

A rate increase in May, when the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee produces its next inflation report, is looking like a given, says David Smith* in the above quote from his Sunday Times column (£).

For that to happen, there would have to be a major turnaround in the economy, which does not look likely, to say the least. The problem is that consumer and business confidence has collapsed, net trade is still negative, unemployment is rising, youth unemployment is on course to hit the million mark along with falling house prices and growth was negative in the fourth quarter.

I agree with Smith, though, that there will not be a rate increase this week.

With the economy in its current state, such a move would be a disaster and would likely have to be quickly reversed, perhaps even by the Chancellor with his powers under the Bank of England Act. Far from enhancing the MPC's inflation-fighting credibility, as the MPC members Martin Weale and Andrew Sentance have claimed, there is every possibility that such a move would be a death sentence for the MPC.

Keeping rates down as low as possible and hoping and praying and crossing all of his fingers and his toes that the MPC will do more quantative easing is Osborne's only plan B. A rate increase would mean he -- and probably the coalition -- would be finished. (May, by the way, is Sentance's last meeting and Osborne is unlikely to renew him or replace him with another hawk.)

The Bank of England governor, Mervyn King, has it right. The MPC needs to focus on the inflation that it is able to impact. Contrary to what Sentance has been foolishly claiming for months, inflation today or next week or in six months time is completely irrelevant for this week's MPC decision because it takes interest-rate adjustments about 18 months to feed their way through. The current inflation forecast of the MPC is overly optimistic and may well get revised down this month in light of the bad GDP numbers. Even with that forecast, inflation is well below target. Any rate increase would, in all likelihood, push the economy to deflation. The MPC's new inflation forecast, out next week, will show that inflation will be below target at the forecast horizon.

I have considerable sympathy with Professors Arestis and Sawyer, who argued, in a letter to the Financial Times last week, that the inflation we are experiencing has not been caused by excessive demand and that it would be nonsensical to reduce demand to "solve" it. They wrote: "It has long been recognised that, at best, interest rates by pushing down demand could address demand-push inflation and that they would be helpless in the face of cost-push inflation. At the present time, demand is still low in the UK and clearly significantly below capacity. The pressures on inflation are coming from higher world oil and food prices, value added tax and other tax increases and delayed effects of depreciated exchange rate. It is then clear that raising interest rates has no role to play in bringing down inflation." "No role" may be a bit strong but they make a good point.

I would go one step further and argue that the whole idea of targeting CPI inflation has failed. At the very least, the MPC's mandate should be extended to include growth and employment. The inflation measure should include house prices or could just simply be raised to 4 per cent. As I have said many times, happiness research shows that unemployment hurts people much more than inflation, especially now.

Inflation is going to collapse in 2012 when the impact of the one-off increase in VAT, oil and commodity prices and the exchange-rate depreciation mechanically drop out of the inflation calculations. As Mervyn noted in his recent speech, these three items alone account for 3 per cent of the current 3.7 per cent CPI inflation rate.

Inflation is going to go away because of the big output gap in the economy, simple as that. The danger of deflation, however, remains. Unemployment is rising and unless things improve quickly, any increase in rates would send the economy into a downward spiral as the effects of the VAT increase and spending cuts hit home. In all likelihood, Adam Posen is going to prevail and, by the summer, the MPC will be forced to do more QE. David Smith's racing certainty is likely to fall at the first fence.

*By the way, David, what ever happened to your building skip index? Presumably there aren't many around since the house price crash and the lack of availability of credit.

David Blanchflower is economics editor of the New Statesman and professor of economics at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire

Getty
Show Hide image

Jeremy Corbyn's won a monumental victory - but it's more delicate than it looks

The need for peace on the left is overwhelming. 

It is perverse, absurd even, that in the aftermath of such a monumental victory Jeremy Corbyn must immediately talk of coalition building and compromise. Previous winners of internal struggles – most notably Tony Blair and Neil Kinnock – certainly did nothing of the sort, and Corbyn’s victory is bigger than theirs. To an extent, this is not the victory of one set of ideas but the establishment of a new party altogether – with a completely different centre of gravity and an almost completely new membership. 

That new Labour party – and core project that has built around Corbyn’s leadership – is itself a delicate network of alliances. The veterans of big social movements, from the Iraq War to the anti-austerity protests of 2011, find themselves in bed with left-leaning cosmopolitan modernisers and the reanimated remnants of the old Labour left. All parts of the coalition have reason for hubris, to believe that this new formation – complex enough as it is already, and filled with ideas and energy – can carry the Corbyn project into Number 10 with or without the co-operation of his Labour colleagues and the wider left. 

That vision is a mirage. Labour has undergone the biggest membership surge in its history, and is now the biggest left of centre party in Europe. As John Curtis has pointed out, the party’s support has maintained a high floor relative to the level of infighting and sniping over the summer, in part because of Corbyn’s strong appeal to Labour’s base. But the bleak electoral outlook, compounded by boundary changes, requires us to do more than read out lines from pre-written scripts. We must all, from a position of strength, stare death in the face.

The terms of peace with the Labour right must be negotiated carefully. There can be no negotiating away of internal democracy in the selection of candidates or national policy-setting; doing so would permanently weaken the left’s hand and allow Corbyn’s detractors in parliament to run riot. And in policy terms, Corbyn cannot compromise basic anti-austerity principles – not just because doing so would be a betrayal that would demobilise Labour’s new base, but because the project of triangulation pioneered by Ed Milliband is a tried and tested electoral failure. 

And yet the need for peace is overwhelming. At a grassroots level, Owen Smith’s support was not made up of hardened Blairites. Many of them, unlike Smith himself, really did share Corbyn’s political vision but had been ground down and convinced that, regardless of the rights and wrongs, there could be no end to Labour’s civil war without new leadership. The left’s job is to prove those people, and the politicians who claim to represent them, wrong. 

Labour’s assorted hacks – on left and right – often forget how boring and irrelevant the search for Labour’s soul looks to a wider public that long ago left behind party tribalism. The intellectual task ahead of us is about framing our politics in a comprehensible, modernising way – not creating a whole new generation of people who know Kinnock’s 1985 conference speech by rote. 

A united Labour Party, free to focus on shifting the consensus of British politics could well change history. But the grim realities of the situation may force us to go even further. To get a majority at the next election, Labour will need to gain 106 seats – a swing not achieved since 1997. 

Add to that the socially conservative affirmation of the Brexit vote, and the left’s profound confusion in terms of what to do about it, and the challenge of getting a Labour Prime Minister – regardless of who they are or what they stand for – looks like an unprecedented challenge. That unprecedented challenge could be met by an unprecedented alliance of political forces outside the Labour party as well as inside it. 

In order for Labour to win under the conditions set by the boundary review, everything has to be calibrated right. Firstly, we need an energised, mass party which advocates radical and popular policies. Secondly, we need the party not to tear itself apart every few months. And yes, finally, we may well need an honest, working arrangement between Labour, the Greens, and other progressive parties, including even the Lib Dems. 

Exactly how that alliance would be constituted – and how far it would be under the control of local parties – could be the matter of some debate. But there is every chance of it working – especially if the terms of the next general election take place in the context of the outcome of a Brexit negotiation. 

The starting point for that journey must be a recognition on the part of Corbyn’s opponents that the new Labour party is not just the overwhelming democratic choice of members, but also – with a mass activist base and a mostly popular programme – the only electable version of the Labour party in the current climate. For the left’s part, we must recognise that the coalition that has built around Corbyn is just the core of a much wider set of alliances – inside Labour and perhaps beyond.