Balls has got the Tories on the run

The energetic shadow chancellor is challenging the coalition's missteps at every turn.

The battle over the appropriateness of the coalition's economic policy has truly commenced and the amateurs are no longer dominating. A professional economist has arrived on the scene in the form of the shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, whose energetic interventions, as I suspected they would, are beginning to put coalition ministers on the back foot. Ed is highly effective and is challenging the coalition's missteps at every turn. His alternative strategy is to cut the deficit more slowly and not to compromise growth.

The shadow chancellor's Budget broadcast seemed particularly on point and contained a big apology. Balls agreed that regulation should have been tougher but: "Every government in the world got that wrong -- and I'd like to say sorry for the part that I and the last Labour government played in that." And he rightly pointed out that the Tories are not innocent, as they continually argued for even lighter regulation.

Ed had several sound bites that will surely have some resonance with the general public. "Our economy, which was working, has now ground to a halt." "By cutting too far and too fast, George Osborne isn't solving the problem -- he is in danger of making it worse." "But George Osborne is going too far and too fast and we're paying the price in lost jobs and slower growth." "So I fear that George Osborne's plan won't just hurt, it won't work." This counterattack seems to be working: at PMQs last week, an obviously rattled David Cameron snapped angrily that Balls is "the most annoying person in modern politics". Ed is obviously getting to the Prime Minister. Good. That means our shadow chancellor is doing his job.

Of particular interest are the claims made by Chancellor Osborne that the OECD is a big fan of his policies. He even referred to a letter he received from the right-wing boss of the OECD, Angel Gurria, in which he said that "while this budget contains hard measures, we are convinced that they are unavoidable in the short term to pave the way for a stronger recovery. By sticking to the fiscal consolidation plan set out last year, the United Kingdom will continue along the road towards stability."

Interestingly, today, in its interim assessment of the G7 economies, the OECD made clear that it thinks that the UK economy will grow more slowly than any other G7 economy except Japan, which has just been hit by tempest and flood. The OECD also revised their forecast for Q2 2011 from 1.3 per cemt to 1 per cent on an annualised basis. At the same time, it upgraded its forecasts for many G7 economies, predicting second-quarter growth in the US, France and Germany of 3.4 per cent, 2.8 per cent and 2.3 per cent, respectively. If the policies are so great, how come the OECD lowered their forecast for growth in the UK but raised it in all the other OECD countries that are not implementing austerity? I suspect Ed may well be picking up on this rather glaring contradiction.

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

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Scotland's huge deficit is an obstacle to independence

The country's borrowing level (9.5 per cent) is now double that of the UK. 

Ever since Brexit, and indeed before it, the possibility of a second Scottish independence referendum has loomed. But today's public spending figures are one reason why the SNP will proceed with caution. They show that Scotland's deficit has risen to £14.8bn (9.5 per cent of GDP) even when a geographic share of North Sea revenue is included. That is more than double the UK's borrowing level, which last year fell from 5 per cent of GDP to 4 per cent. 

The "oil bonus" that nationalists once boasted of has become almost non-existent. North Sea revenue last year fell from £1.8bn to a mere £60m. Total public sector revenue was £400 per person lower than for the UK, while expenditure was £1,200 higher.  

Nicola Sturgeon pre-empted the figures by warning of the cost to the Scottish economy of Brexit (which her government estimated at between £1.7bn and £11.2.bn a year by 2030). But the country's black hole means the risks of independence remain immense. As a new state, Scotland would be forced to pay a premium on its debt, resulting in an even greater fiscal gap. Were it to use the pound without permission, with no independent central bank and no lender of last resort, borrowing costs would rise still further. To offset a Greek-style crisis, Scotland would be forced to impose considerable austerity. 

Nor would EU membership provide a panacea. Scotland would likely be forced to wait years to join owing to the scepticism of Spain and others facing their own secessionist movements. At present, two-thirds of the country's exports go to the UK, compared to just 15 per cent to other EU states.

The SNP will only demand a second referendum when it is convinced it can win. At present, that is far from certain. Though support for independence rose following the Brexit vote, a recent YouGov survey last month gave the No side a four-point lead (45-40). Until the nationalists enjoy sustained poll leads (as they have never done before), the SNP will avoid rejoining battle. Today's figures are a considerable obstacle to doing so. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.