Six reasons why Cameron is wrong on the economy

It is increasingly clear that the PM is out of his depth and out of touch. This is "nothing for noth

In a speech on the economy yesterday that was 2,235 words long, an out-of-touch David Cameron only mentioned jobs and unemployment once each. He didn't mention the young at all in a week when youth unemployment hit the million mark. It is becoming increasingly apparent that Cameron is a) totally out of his depth when it comes to the economy; b) has no clue what to do to fix the problem; c) has little sympathy for those who are less fortunate than he is. He just doesn't care. Cameron has failed to recognise that his government's economic policies are in complete disarray, and all he can do is resort to spin and obfuscation. Austerity in the UK has failed.

The part of the speech that really struck me was this:

[T]here are some who seriously try to argue that additional spending and borrowing will actually lead to less debt in the end ... despite the fact that no evidence supports this assertion. These arguments are just a way of avoiding difficult decisions ... the kind of something for nothing economics that got us into this mess ... which is why no indebted European country is taking that path. Nor are there any major European opposition parties in high deficit countries arguing for additional borrowing -­ except here in Britain.

It is about time we put this joker straight.

1) Actually, additional spending would stimulate growth and that would increase tax revenues, as it did in the US under the Clinton boom. In case you haven't noticed, Dave, your pal Osborne slashed spending and raised taxes, which increased borrowing. That is why you are in such a mess. What if the government borrowed £100bn that was funded by the MPC through QE, and used the money to say, build ten nuclear power stations. That would lower the cost of fuel, employ people and help masses of small and large firms. It would raise productivity and in the long-run lower our debts, wouldn't it? If not, why not, Prime Minister?

2) There is an enormous amount of evidence to suggest that fiscal and monetary stimulus can increase growth. There is actually no evidence from anywhere in the world to support the ideology you have been following of an expansionary fiscal contraction, especially when it is not possible to lower interest rates. Such a view is "oxymoronic", as Larry Summers has said.

3) These arguments are not a way of avoiding making difficult decisions. They are what has to happen, because your government made the wrong decisions by imposing austerity before the recovery was fully established. You can't blame the eurozone, as it was clear when you formed your government that there were major downside risks to UK recovery from the European periphery and European banks. You just chose to look the other way and go forward with your mistaken policies, wilfully disregarding the potential dangers for the British people.

4) "Something for nothing economics" is a nice phrase but is totally meaningless. If I recall, Dave, you matched Labour's spending plans, supported deregulation and opposed rescuing the banks. It looked like you may have to do the latter if things continue the way they are. Lloyds and RBS are in trouble again. What you did was slash and burn hoping for growth, but you killed off the tender shoots of recovery. The policies you have undertaken without a growth plan is "nothing for nothing economics".

5) "No indebted European country is taking this path." Well, actually, most other European countries grew faster than the UK did over the last twelve months. GDP growth was as follows. Belgium 1.8 per cent; Germany 2.6 per cent; France 1.6 per cent; Netherlands 1.1 per cent; Austria 2.8 per cent; Finland 2.8 per cent; and the UK 0.5 per cent. The eurozone is headed into recession because they are stuck in monetary union. Portugal this week went to the IMF and asked for more stimulus as austerity has failed there too. Austerity doesn't work when banks aren't lending and your major export market is heading into depression. The German central bank, the Bundesbank, today cut its 2012 growth forecast to between 0.5 per cent and 1 per cent, from a June prediction of 1.8 percent. It said a "pronounced" period of economic weakness can't be ruled out if the crisis worsens.

6) "Nor are there any major European opposition parties in high deficit countries arguing for additional borrowing -­ except here in Britain". Denmark has lower bond yields than the UK and lower unemployment, and its new government is introducing more fiscal stimulus. These other countries would do this if they could, but they are stuck in a fiscal and monetary straightjacket. That is why there is talk of the eurozone breaking up.

Dave, you are in a big mess on the economy. What are you going to do if the crisis worsens, as it looks like it might? Panic, I guess.

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

Getty
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.