It may be too late to prevent recession

George Osborne's policies have failed. He talked down the economy -- and now it is sinking.

The data releases this week have all been bad for the coalition. It started in the United States, which matters because generally what happens there is repeated in the UK a few months later.

First, the Conference Board published data on consumer confidence that showed a much greater collapse than had been expected, especially in relation to the respondents' expectations for the future.

Second, the Case-Shiller house price index -- the leading measure of US home prices -- shows that the US National Home Price Index declined by 4.2 per cent in the first quarter of 2011, after having fallen 3.6 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2010. The National Index hit a new recession low with the first quarter's data and posted an annual decline of 5.1 per cent versus the first quarter of 2010. Nationally, home prices are back to their mid-2002 levels. As of March 2011, 19 of the 20 MSAs covered the index were down compared to March 2010.

Third, ahead of the official release of employment data on Friday, an ADP Employment Services report suggests that private-sector payroll growth slowed sharply in May, falling to the lowest level in eight months. This prompted some economists to lower their forecasts for job growth in Friday's data release. It looks as if the US is slowing.

In Europe, the final Markit eurozone manufacturing PMI fell sharply to a seven-month low of 54.6 in May, down from 58.0 in April and below the flash estimate of 54.8. The fall in the index was the largest since November 2008, as manufacturers reported slower rates of increase in output, new orders, employment and inventory accumulation. China is also slowing. Economic output in Australia shrank by 1.2 per cent in the three months to March -- the worst quarterly slide since 1991 -- the national accounts of the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed yesterday.

The data releases for the UK today were truly awful. They follow from the public finance data that shows that, far from paying off the debt, Osborne is increasing it. Plus such growth as there wasn't -­ GDP grew by zero over the past six months -- was driven by government spending. Then, today, the PMI for manufacturing in May was worse than the market expected.

According to Capital Economics, on past form, that leaves the balance consistent with quarterly falls in manufacturing output of around 1 per cent. Some of this fall, it argues, is likely to have been driven by the temporary disruption to supply chains caused by the Japanese earthquake. But Capital Economics points out that the new orders balance also fell from 50.8 to 48.3, which, it argues, suggests that "beneath the monthly volatility, a sharp underlying slowdown in demand is taking place".

There were also a number of statistical releases from the Bank of England, which added to the bleak picture. It appears that banks are simply not lending enough to get the economy moving. This suggests the poorly named Merlin project -- which should be renamed the Mickey Mouse project -- has not worked any magic. First, the money-supply growth was weak. Second, the stock of lending to UK businesses overall contracted in the three months to February, as did the stock of lending to small and medium-sized enterprises. Third, the number of loans approved for house purchases fell by 4 per cent to a four-month low of 45,166 in April ­- the lowest figure for April since records began in 1992.

This inept Chancellor has talked the economy down by falsely claiming it was bankrupt when it wasn't, which has decimated animal spirits among both businesses and consumers. He has also tried to blame a once-in-a-hundred-year global financial crisis on the previous government, which was clearly also untrue and hyperbolic. Osborne has implemented toothless regulation over the banks and has demonstrably failed to get them to lend. He also has no interest in controlling bankers' bonuses, despite his absurd claims to the contrary when he was shadow chancellor. And all of this before the public spending cuts hit: currently it is the public sector that is the driver for growth but that is all about to change. The public finances are worsening, not improving.

The government's economic policy is in total disarray and the economy is sinking. Osborne has been hoisted by his own petard; his numerous false claims were inevitably going to catch up with him and now they have. The coalition's austerity programme was never based on sound economics and was simply a political move to shrink the state. Interestingly, the claims that the economics profession supported his actions have turned out to be false. In my NS column in the issue out tomorrow, I make clear that one of the initial signatories to the letter to the Times that Osborne touted as supporting him ­- the 2010 Nobel Prize winner in economics, Chris Pissarides -­ has now, embarrassingly for Osborne, turned against him and now opposes the ill-conceived and wreckless austerity programme of cuts and tax increases.

It is hard to find any economists outside the City of London that do support the government's strategy, other than a few of the usual right-wing hangers-on.

It is time for Osborne to explain to the British people why his economic policies have failed and what he intends to do about it. My fear is that Slasher has inflicted so much damage on the British economy that it is too late to prevent us slipping back into recession.

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

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Like it or hate it, it doesn't matter: Brexit is happening, and we've got to make a success of it

It's time to stop complaining and start campaigning, says Stella Creasy.

A shortage of Marmite, arguments over exporting jam and angry Belgians. And that’s just this month.  As the Canadian trade deal stalls, and the government decides which cottage industry its will pick next as saviour for the nation, the British people are still no clearer getting an answer to what Brexit actually means. And they are also no clearer as to how they can have a say in how that question is answered.

To date there have been three stages to Brexit. The first was ideological: an ever-rising euroscepticism, rooted in a feeling that the costs the compromises working with others require were not comparable to the benefits. It oozed out, almost unnoticed, from its dormant home deep in the Labour left and the Tory right, stoked by Ukip to devastating effect.

The second stage was the campaign of that referendum itself: a focus on immigration over-riding a wider debate about free trade, and underpinned by the tempting and vague claim that, in an unstable, unfair world, control could be taken back. With any deal dependent on the agreement of twenty eight other countries, it has already proved a hollow victory.

For the last few months, these consequences of these two stages have dominated discussion, generating heat, but not light about what happens next. Neither has anything helped to bring back together those who feel their lives are increasingly at the mercy of a political and economic elite and those who fear Britain is retreating from being a world leader to a back water.

Little wonder the analogy most commonly and easily reached for by commentators has been that of a divorce. They speculate our coming separation from our EU partners is going to be messy, combative and rancorous. Trash talk from some - including those in charge of negotiating -  further feeds this perception. That’s why it is time for all sides to push onto Brexit part three: the practical stage. How and when is it actually going to happen?

A more constructive framework to use than marriage is one of a changing business, rather than a changing relationship. Whatever the solid economic benefits of EU membership, the British people decided the social and democratic costs had become too great. So now we must adapt.

Brexit should be as much about innovating in what we make and create as it is about seeking to renew our trading deals with the world. New products must be sought alongside new markets. This doesn’t have to mean cutting corners or cutting jobs, but it does mean being prepared to learn new skills and invest in helping those in industries that are struggling to make this leap to move on. The UK has an incredible and varied set of services and products to offer the world, but will need to focus on what we do well and uniquely here to thrive. This is easier said than done, but can also offer hope. Specialising and skilling up also means we can resist those who want us to jettison hard-won environmental and social protections as an alternative. 

Most accept such a transition will take time. But what is contested is that it will require openness. However, handing the public a done deal - however well mediated - will do little to address the division within our country. Ensuring the best deal in a way that can garner the public support it needs to work requires strong feedback channels. That is why transparency about the government's plans for Brexit is so important. Of course, a balance needs to be struck with the need to protect negotiating positions, but scrutiny by parliament- and by extension the public- will be vital. With so many differing factors at stake and choices to be made, MPs have to be able and willing to bring their constituents into the discussion not just about what Brexit actually entails, but also what kind of country Britain will be during and after the result - and their role in making it happen. 

Those who want to claim the engagement of parliament and the public undermines the referendum result are still in stages one and two of this debate, looking for someone to blame for past injustices, not building a better future for all. Our Marmite may be safe for the moment, but Brexit can’t remain a love it or hate it phenomenon. It’s time for everyone to get practical.