A fall in confidence that could end in double dip

The Chancellor can no longer sit idly by.

I am beginning to sound like a broken record as the bad data news on the UK economy continues to pile up. Things on the economic front are really not good and, most worrying, are worsening fast before our very eyes.

The major release of the results of the European Commission Economic Sentiment Index, based on business and consumer surveys in August 2011, was a real shocker. The index is made up of five components based on business surveys in industry, services, manufacturing and retail, as well as a consumer survey. These are conducted in identical form in all 27 member countries and are available as a pdf file or can be downloaded as Excel files. Check them out -- they are scary!

In August, the ESI declined by 5.0 points to 97.3 in the EU and by 4.7 points to 98.3 in the euro area. This decline resulted from a broad-based deterioration in sentiment across the sectors, with losses in confidence being particularly marked in services, retail trade and among consumers. Only the construction sector in the euro area recorded an improvement.

Among the largest member states, Germany (-5.7 points) and the UK (-5.6) reported the strongest decreases in sentiment, followed by Poland (-3.6), the Netherlands (-3.0) and, to a lesser extent, Italy (-0.7), while the ESI remained broadly unchanged in Spain (-0.3). The ESI remains above its long-term average only in Germany and stands at 92.9 in the UK, having fallen from 104.6 in March.

Consumer confidence has continued its steady fall and is now at around the same level it was in May 2009 -- and it continues to drop.

Retail and services confidence

Of particular concern in the UK, though, was the dramatic collapse in confidence among businesses in services and retail. This is illustrated in the graph (above), which shows the sharp fall in both surveys over the past three or four months. This is of particular concern, given that the two surveys tracked very well the collapse of output at the onset of recession.

The two surveys started to fall sharply from March 2008 as the economy headed into recession, which was dated as starting in the second quarter of 2008, based on negative GDP growth.

We are able to explore further the reasons for the fall in both sectors as the European Commission provides more disaggregated detail. It is apparent that in both sectors, demand has fallen markedly and expectations for the future are increasingly pessimistic. Retailers are reporting rising inventory levels due to lack of sales.

 

Evidence of doom and gloom in the massive service sector was also reported on Tuesday in the CBI's survey of service-sector firms. Business volumes fell in the UK services sector in the past quarter, at the fastest rate since November 2009, the CBI found. Firms in business and professional services, which had been growing slowly, saw volumes contract unexpectedly.

Volumes of business in consumer services also fell -- and at the fastest rate since November 2009. Richard Woolhouse, the CBI's Head of Fiscal Policy, said:

Activity has fallen across the services sector for the first time since November 2009. This quarter we've seen more evidence of the ongoing decline in consumer services spending, as people with increasingly squeezed household incomes are forced to cut back their discretionary spending.

The concern is that this drop in business and consumer confidence is a prelude to a double-dip recession. I assume that the Chancellor George Osborne will continue to assert that his policies are working. Now that both businesses and consumers are running scared, however, Osborne can no longer sit idly by and assert that all is well. It is time for further fiscal stimulus.

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

Keystone/Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Show Hide image

What Donald Trump could learn from Ronald Reagan

Reagan’s candidacy was built on more than his celebrity. Trump not only lacks experience as an elected official, he isn’t part of any organised political movement.

“No one remembers who came in second.” That wisdom, frequently dispensed by the US presidential candidate Donald Trump, came back to haunt him this week. Trump’s loss in the Iowa Republican caucuses to the Texas senator Ted Cruz, barely beating Senator Marco Rubio of Florida for second place, was the first crack in a campaign that has defied all expectations.

It has been a campaign built on Trump’s celebrity. Over the past eight months, his broad name recognition, larger-than-life personality and media savvy have produced a theatrical candidacy that has transfixed even those he repels. The question now is whether that celebrity will be enough – whether a man so obsessed with being “Number One” can bounce back from defeat.

Iowa isn’t everything, after all. It didn’t back the eventual Republican nominee in 2008 or 2012. Nor, for that matter, in 1980, when another “celebrity” candidate was in the mix. That was the year Iowa picked George H W Bush over Ronald Reagan – the former actor whom seasoned journalists dismissed as much for his right-wing views as for his “B-movie” repertoire. But Reagan regrouped, romped to victory in the New Hampshire primary and rode a wave of popular support all the way to the White House.

Trump might hope to replicate that success and has made a point of pushing the Reagan analogy more generally. Yet it is a comparison that exposes Trump’s weaknesses and his strengths.

Both men were once Democrats who came later in life to the Republican Party, projecting toughness, certainty and unabashed patriotism. Trump has even adopted Reagan’s 1980 campaign promise to “make America great again”. Like Reagan, he has shown he can appeal to evangelicals despite question marks over his religious conviction and divorces. In his ability to deflect criticism, too, Trump has shown himself as adept as Reagan – if by defiance rather than by charm – and redefined what it means to be “Teflon” in the age of Twitter.

That defiance, however, points to a huge difference in tone between Reagan’s candidacy and Trump’s. Reagan’s vision was a positive, optimistic one, even as he castigated “big government” and the perceived decline of US power. Reagan’s America was meant to be “a city upon a hill” offering a shining example of liberty to the world – in rhetoric at least. Trump’s vision is of an America closed off from the world. His rhetoric invokes fear as often as it does freedom.

On a personal level, Reagan avoided the vituperative attacks that have been the hallmark of Trump’s campaign, even as he took on the then“establishment” of the Republican Party – a moderate, urban, east coast elite. In his first run for the nomination, in 1976, Reagan even challenged an incumbent Republican president, Gerald Ford, and came close to defeating him. But he mounted the challenge on policy grounds, advocating the so-called “Eleventh Commandment”: “Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican.” Trump, as the TV debates between the Republican presidential candidates made clear, does not subscribe to the same precept.

More importantly, Reagan in 1976 and 1980 was the leader of a resurgent conservative movement, with deep wells of political experience. He had been president of the Screen Actors Guild in the late 1940s, waging a campaign to root out communist infiltrators. He had gone on to work for General Electric in the 1950s as a TV pitchman and after-dinner speaker, honing a business message that resonated beyond the “rubber chicken circuit”.

In 1964 he grabbed headlines with a televised speech on behalf of the Republican presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater – a bright spot in Goldwater’s otherwise ignominious campaign. Two years later he was elected governor of California – serving for eight years as chief executive of the nation’s most populous state. He built a conservative record on welfare reform, law and order, and business regulation that he pushed on to the federal agenda when he ran for president.

All this is to say that Reagan’s candidacy was built on more than his celebrity. By contrast, Trump not only lacks experience as an elected official, he isn’t part of any organised political movement – which enhanced his “outsider” status, perhaps, but not his ground game. So far, he has run on opportunism, tapping in to popular frustration, channelled through a media megaphone.

In Iowa, this wasn’t enough. To win the nomination he will have to do much more to build his organisation. He will be hoping that in the primaries to come, voters do remember who came in second. 

This article first appeared in the 05 February 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Putin's war