Osborne's policies threaten Britain's AAA rating

Moody's warning proves that Britain isn't out of the danger zone.

So now Moody's has got in on the game. Today, it reiterated its warning that the UK could shortly lose its AAA credit rating because Osborne's policies are failing. The pound fell by more than half a cent on the news. Specifically, this was because growth is failing and this hopeless coalition government looks unlikely to hit its deficit reduction targets. As a result of the lack of growth in the economy, this week, Slasher has admitted that he is going to have to allow the automatic stabilisers to kick in to prevent the economy dropping off a cliff. Oh, dear. And all of that in the week when Cameron announced more U-turns on the NHS and prison reform. Three U-turns in a week is rather a lot.

So much for Osborne's claim, a couple of weeks ago, in his speech to the Institute of Directors on 11 May that: "Our credit rating has come off negative outlook ­ when other countries are facing downgrades. We have brought much-needed stability at home and attracted near universal confidence abroad." Looks like that confidence is slipping as each hour passes. Yesterday, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, fired a shot across Slasher's bow when he warned that cutting fiscally too quickly was "self-defeating" and that uneven recoveries are likely to require further stimulus. "Establishing a credible plan for reducing future deficits now would not only enhance economic performance in the long run but could also yield near-term benefits by leading to lower long-term interest rates. On the other hand, "A sharp fiscal consolidation focused on the very near term could be self-defeating." That is how it is looking in the UK. It is interesting that the US has restored the GDP that was lost in the recession and is growing, albeit slowly, while the UK is stagnating and likely needs more stimulus than the US does.

Plus, plans for the new Financial Services Committee also look to be in disarray as the Treasury select committee expressed concern this week about the lack of independence of its members and has called for more external members. Alistair Clark, who worked for years at Mervyn King's side, hardly seems independent. Giving all that power to the Bank means that Mervyn is likely to dominate just as he did with the MPC -- and look what a mess groupthink got us into in 2008. The ex-MPC members Sushil Wadhwani and Willem Buiter also expressed their opposition on giving the Bank of England more powers. Osborne's plans for financial stability are in a mess, along with lots of other policies this government has failed to think through. Plus, banks are still not lending, as Vince Cable made clear today. Maybe one day this government will do something about it!

There was also some more worrying economic news on jobs and retail sales. The latest KPMG/REC report on jobs showed weaker increases in both permanent placements and temp billings. The growth of overall job vacancies eased to a five-month low and there was the lowest rise in permanent staff salaries for three months. Commenting on the results, Bernard Brown, partner and head of business services at KPMG, said: "The latest figures are worrying -­ because they reveal a marked slowdown of the UK jobs market. We'll need to see whether this is a trend or a blip. Employers across all sectors are becoming more cautious about hiring new staff. With businesses and consumers now being hit by higher taxes and fuel costs, public-spending cuts and a continuing squeeze on real incomes -­ this is perhaps no surprise." Too right.

May's BRC retail sales monitor suggests that the underlying strength of the consumer recovery is exceptionally weak. The annual growth rate of like-for-like sales values fell to minus 2.1 per cent, down from the 5.2 per cent growth seen in April. April's figures were boosted by the later timing of Easter this year and the royal wedding, so a sharp drop was always on the cards. But Capital Economics has pointed out that May's survey was particularly weak and, excluding past months, which were adversely affected by the timing of Easter, "This was the weakest reading since December 2008." Before too long, Osborne may have to take the IMF's advice and cut taxes. How about now?

I couldn't let David Smith's ridiculous and out-of-touch column in the Sunday Times over the weekend calling for a rise in the exchange rate to pass unnoticed. He claimed: "The main reason we need a stronger pound is to help control inflation and limit the extent that interest rates will need to rise to do so." Honestly, I don't know what planet this guy is on, as that is absolutely the last thing the British economy needs, given that we have had zero growth over the past six months and austerity has yet to hit. Second, we don't have an inflation problem: we potentially have a problem of deflation, as the MPC has made clear once the transitory effects of VAT, commodity and oil prices and the fall in the exchange rate drop out. Indeed, it would be even clearer that we were faced with the possibility of deflation if falling house prices were included in the CPI. Any attempt to raise rates now would decimate growth further. Smith has been on the wrong side of almost every economic issue throughout this recession and, of course, failed to spot it in the first place.

The UK demonstrably does not need a stronger pound right now. A depreciated currency has provided a welcome stimulus to the economy and any appreciation now would be bad for employment and growth. I guess Smith hasn't noticed that the pound has appreciated strongly over the past 12 months (from $1.45 to approx $1.65) since the Fed did more competitive QE and the MPC, wrongly, did not respond by doing more QE, too. Smith chortled that the Institute of Economic Affairs' shadow MPC shamelessly promotes and supports him. Personally I couldn't care less that six third-rate, right-wing hacks agreed with Smith and voted for a rate rise. They have zero credibility and should be ignored: as the MPC ­- minus "Death" Sentance -- fortunately will do this week. As the IMF made quite clear, a rate hike now would put Slasher in trouble. On second thoughts, maybe they should raise rates . . .

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

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

No, the battle in Momentum isn't about young against old

Jon Lansman and his allies' narrative doesn't add up, argues Rida Vaquas.

If you examined the recent coverage around Momentum, you’d be forgiven for thinking that it was headed towards an acrimonious split, judging by the vitriol, paranoia and lurid accusations that have appeared online in the last couple days. You’d also be forgiven for thinking that this divide was between a Trotskyist old guard who can’t countenance new ways of working, and hip youngsters who are filled with idealism and better at memes. You might then be incredibly bemused as to how the Trotskyists Momentum was keen to deny existed over the summer have suddenly come to the brink of launching a ‘takeover bid’.

However these accounts, whatever intentions or frustrations that they are driven by, largely misrepresent the dispute within Momentum and what transpired at the now infamous National Committee meeting last Saturday.

In the first instance, ‘young people’ are by no means universally on the side of e-democracy as embodied by the MxV online platform, nor did all young people at the National Committee vote for Jon Lansman’s proposal which would make this platform the essential method of deciding Momentum policy.

Being on National Committee as the representative from Red Labour, I spoke in favour of a conference with delegates from local groups, believing this is the best way to ensure local groups are at the forefront of what we do as an organisation.

I was nineteen years old then. Unfortunately speaking and voting in favour of a delegates based conference has morphed me into a Trotskyist sectarian from the 1970s, aging me by over thirty years.

Moreover I was by no means the only young person in favour of this, Josie Runswick (LGBT+ representative) and the Scottish delegates Martyn Cook and Lauren Gilmour are all under thirty and all voted for a delegates based national conference. I say this to highlight that the caricature of an intergenerational war between the old and the new is precisely that: a caricature bearing little relation to a much more nuanced reality.

Furthermore, I believe that many people who voted for a delegates-based conference would be rather astounded to find themselves described as Trotskyists. I do not deny that there are Trotskyists on National Committee, nor do I deny that Trotskyists supported a delegates-based conference – that is an open position of theirs. What I do object is a characterisation of the 32 delegates who voted for a delegates-based conference as Trotskyists, or at best, gullible fools who’ve been taken in.  Many regional delegates were mandated by the people to whom they are accountable to support a national conference based on this democratic model, following broad and free political discussion within their regions. As thrilling as it might be to fantasise about a sinister plot driven by the shadow emperors of the hard Left against all that it is sensible and moderate in Momentum, the truth is rather more mundane. Jon Lansman and his supporters failed to convince people in local groups of the merits of his e-democracy proposal, and as a result lost the vote.

I do not think that Momentum is doomed to fail on account of the particular details of our internal structures, providing that there is democracy, accountability and grassroots participation embedded into it. I do not think Momentum is doomed to fail the moment Jon Lansman, however much respect I have for him, loses a vote. I do not even think Momentum is doomed to fail if Trotskyists are involved, or even win sometimes, if they make their case openly and convince others of their ideas in the structures available.

The existential threat that Momentum faces is none of these things, it is the propagation of a toxic and polarised political culture based on cliques and personal loyalties as opposed to genuine political discussion on how we can transform labour movement and transform society. It is a political culture in which those opposed to you in the organisation are treated as alien invaders hell-bent on destroying it, even when we’ve worked together to build it up, and we worked together before the Corbyn moment even happened. It is a political culture where members drag others through the mud, using the rhetoric of the Right that’s been used to attack all of us, on social and national media and lend their tacit support to witch hunts that saw thousands of Labour members and supporters barred from voting in the summer. It is ultimately a political culture in which our trust in each other and capacity to work together on is irreparably eroded.

We have a tremendous task facing us: to fight for a socialist alternative in a global context where far right populism is rapidly accruing victories; to fight for the Labour Party to win governmental power; to fight for a world in which working class people have the power to collectively change their lives and change the societies we live in. In short: there is an urgent need to get our act together. This will not be accomplished by sniping about ‘saboteurs’ but by debating the kind of politics we want clearly and openly, and then coming together to campaign from a grassroots level upwards.

Rida Vaquas is Red Labour Representative on Momentum National Committee.