Europe sweetens the pill for Spain

Spanish bonds will get cheaper, but the EU wants control of the banks in return

At an extremely late hour in the day, the European summit appears to have agreed to modest, but important, changes in the structure of European bailouts.

The most important alteration for many is the fact that the funds provided to Spain by the European Stability Mechanism (annouced on the 9th and formally requested on the 25th) are to be provided without seniority. Previously, loans from the ESM are given subject to a proviso – enforced through convention rather than legality – that they are to be repaid before any other loans.

This is problematic for countries in trouble, since it makes it a lot harder for them to receive other funds. If you are a private investor, the last country you want to lend to is one which, if it goes bust, has to pay off a €100bn+ loan to the European Central Bank before you see a penny. As a result, when Spain first announced it was planning to seek a bailout, the first thing to happen was a spike, of around 5 per cent, in its bond yields (the cost of borrowing).

It now appears that seniority is to be "renounced" for the ESM's loan to Spain. It may still have implicit seniority – in any bankruptcy, the debtor has some choice of the order in which they pay off creditors of equal status, and Spain is unlikely to want to piss off the EU too much – but private lenders will be able to feel slightly more comfortable in giving money to the country. The question for the ESM now (and there are always further questions) is whether this is a one-off exemption, or new policy. And if it is new policy, can it be applied retroactively? Spain is, after all, not the only country with a bailout from the EU.

The summit also agreed to allow funds from the bailout to be injected directly into Spain's banks. The statement from the summit affirms that "it is imperative to break the vicious circle between banks and sovereigns," and that the ESM should be allowed to recapitalise banks. Previously, the money would have gone directly into a Spanish government vehicle, which would have paid out to the banks; the ESM is now capable of skipping that step, which should save everyone some time and money.

More important than what the EU has allowed, though, are the concessions it has demanded. Instead of there being 17 different banking supervisors throughout the eurozone, there will now be just one, a major step towards the creation of a pan-European banking union. The big change is that Eurozone authorities –  for which, read "Germany" – will now be able to force struggling banks throughout the Eurozone to recapitalise, rather than waiting for the individual sovereigns to decide. 

Angela Merkel is happy. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Why are boundary changes bad for Labour?

New boundaries, a smaller House of Commons and the shift to individual electoral registration all tilt the electoral battlefield further towards the Conservatives. Why?

The government has confirmed it will push ahead with plans to reduce the House of Commons to 600 seats from 650.  Why is that such bad news for the Labour Party? 

The damage is twofold. The switch to individual electoral registration will hurt Labour more than its rivals. . Constituency boundaries in Britain are drawn on registered electors, not by population - the average seat has around 70,000 voters but a population of 90,000, although there are significant variations within that. On the whole, at present, Labour MPs tend to have seats with fewer voters than their Conservative counterparts. These changes were halted by the Liberal Democrats in the coalition years but are now back on course.

The new, 600-member constituencies will all but eliminate those variations on mainland Britain, although the Isle of Wight, and the Scottish island constituencies will remain special cases. The net effect will be to reduce the number of Labour seats - and to make the remaining seats more marginal. (Of the 50 seats that would have been eradicated had the 2013 review taken place, 35 were held by Labour, including deputy leader Tom Watson's seat of West Bromwich East.)

Why will Labour seats become more marginal? For the most part, as seats expand, they will take on increasing numbers of suburban and rural voters, who tend to vote Conservative. The city of Leicester is a good example: currently the city sends three Labour MPs to Westminster, each with large majorities. Under boundary changes, all three could become more marginal as they take on more wards from the surrounding county. Liz Kendall's Leicester West seat is likely to have a particularly large influx of Tory voters, turning the seat - a Labour stronghold since 1945 - into a marginal. 

The pattern is fairly consistent throughout the United Kingdom - Labour safe seats either vanishing or becoming marginal or even Tory seats. On Merseyside, three seats - Frank Field's Birkenhead, a Labour seat since 1950, and two marginal Labour held seats, Wirral South and Wirral West - will become two: a safe Labour seat, and a safe Conservative seat on the Wirral. Lillian Greenwood, the Shadow Transport Secretary, would see her Nottingham seat take more of the Nottinghamshire countryside, becoming a Conservative-held marginal. 

The traffic - at least in the 2013 review - was not entirely one-way. Jane Ellison, the Tory MP for Battersea, would find herself fighting a seat with a notional Labour majority of just under 3,000, as opposed to her current majority of close to 8,000. 

But the net effect of the boundary review and the shrinking of the size of the House of Commons would be to the advantage of the Conservatives. If the 2015 election had been held using the 2013 boundaries, the Tories would have a majority of 22 – and Labour would have just 216 seats against 232 now.

It may be, however, that Labour dodges a bullet – because while the boundary changes would have given the Conservatives a bigger majority, they would have significantly fewer MPs – down to 311 from 330, a loss of 19 members of Parliament. Although the whips are attempting to steady the nerves of backbenchers about the potential loss of their seats, that the number of Conservative MPs who face involuntary retirement due to boundary changes is bigger than the party’s parliamentary majority may force a U-Turn.

That said, Labour’s relatively weak electoral showing may calm jittery Tory MPs. Two months into Ed Miliband’s leadership, Labour averaged 39 per cent in the polls. They got 31 per cent of the vote in 2015. Two months into Tony Blair’s leadership, Labour were on 53 per cent of the vote. They got 43 per cent of the vote. A month and a half into Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, Labour is on 31 per cent of the vote.  A Blair-style drop of ten points would see the Tories net 388 seats under the new boundaries, with Labour on 131. A smaller Miliband-style drop would give the Conservatives 364, and leave Labour with 153 MPs.  

On Labour’s current trajectory, Tory MPs who lose out due to boundary changes may feel comfortable in their chances of picking up a seat elsewhere. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog. He usually writes about politics.