It's not just you; European rescue plans really are getting less effective

Whereas they used to last for whole months, interventions now improve the market for mere hours.

It may be a running joke here that each new intervention in Europe is less effective than the last, with the Spanish bailout saving the world for 48 hours and the Greek elections saving it for 48 minutes, but it turns out that it's actually truer than we thought.

A new study by the Royal Bank of Canada, reported by the Wall Street Journal, finds that the positive market boost from each new intervention by EU officials is taking less and less time to unwind. Whereas the August announcement that the ECB would begin buying bonds calmed the Spanish and Italian markets for 48 days, the removal of Berlusconi in November lasted 48 hours – and the report puts the boost from Samaras winning the Greek election at just two hours.

RCB's chief economist, Tom Porcelli, partly blames computer trading for the decline, but says that the bigger reason is simply that traders have become more sceptical:

I think investors are realizing talk is cheap. If this thesis is correct, it means policy makers can ill afford to continue dragging their feet.

The problem is that its not only talk which is cheap; money is too. If you look over the list of interventions, very few of them involve any sort of structural changes. That was fine in 2008, when it looked like the crisis was a mere cyclical concern; but in Europe now, it is a very different beast. The fear that the Eurozone is an inherently unstable creation is a self-fulfilling prophecy, cycling back into more woes for peripheral countries like Greece, Spain and Italy.

Bailouts, writedowns, and summits can't solve this problem, and the ability to kick the can any further down the road is, it seems, being removed from the picture.

Antonis Samaras, the new Greek Prime Minister, caused two hours of stability. 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.

Show Hide image

Sooner or later, John McDonnell must defend the bankers he hates

The shadow chancellor's message is too complicated to be clear. 

“Like me, you will have friends who voted Conservative,” John McDonnell told an audience of mechanical engineers, Labour faithful and journalists. “They don’t want a bankers’ breakfast – Brexit – any more than I do.”

If the shadow chancellor would subconsciously prefer to talk about fry ups, it might be because the government’s strategy on Brexit has put him in a bind. The man known as a true follower of Marx is increasingly finding himself on the same side as the capitalists. 

In the run up to the EU referendum vote, the Tory Brexiteers leading the Leave campaign talked up a business-friendly, free trading Britain, a Singapore on the North Atlantic, as McDonnell put it in his speech. Labour’s Remain campaigners warned of attacks on workers’ rights.

But then came Brexit, and the economic liberals’ fall from grace. Britain’s new Prime Minister, Theresa May, has steered away from the cosy reassurances once offered to UK Plc and towards the world of the “just managings”. Her Brexit minister, David Davis, hasn’t revealed much about the negotiations, but he has said this: “This Conservative government will not roll back those rights in the workplace.” 

The Tory PM’s focus on controlling immigration and economic fairness will delight many traditional Labour voters. But her apparent complacency about the single market is unnerving economic liberals, and businesses. The most obvious critique of the Prime Minister is that she is willing to risk all-important access to the single market, in order to win on a populist point. 

McDonnell has clearly spotted his. And yet, forced to mount an attack from a free trade position, he sounds conflicted. In his speech on Thursday, he attacked Tory backbenchers who tried to intervene in the Bank of England’s independent monetary policy, and declared: “The economic benefits of free trade are well-known throughout this country.” 

Financial services access is a “red line” in Labour’s negotiation stance. He is prepared to make “a robust economic case” for the benefits of free trade “over the perceived costs of migration”.

Nevertheless, McDonnell’s suspicion of the financial services industry is never far away. His speech was peppered with references to “special deals for bankers”, the “elite” and a “few jobs in the Square Mile”. 

“We have reached the end of the line for the old economic model, with financial services at its centre,” he declared. Instead of a trickle down of wealth, he said, the public had seen “a grotesque trickle up”. 

McDonnell may be bang on in his analysis that economic inequality drove Brexit. He may be right that the economy needs to rebalance towards manufacturing. But that is not what the Brexit negotiations are about. The next two-and-a-half years are about trying to preserve and haggle - and shout the loudest about what the government's priorities should be. And the financial services are central to this. 

Like it or not, we live in a country where services account for nearly 80 per cent of the UK economy, according to the Office for National Statistics, and generate 11.6 per cent of tax receipts. In Scotland, financial services employ nearly 100,000 people. 

The financial services industry is also one of those most jeopardised by Brexit, because it is not a straightforward case of negotiating tariffs. Without passporting rights, UK firms serving the EU are expected to have to establish a subsidiary in the EU. The Institute for Fiscal Studies concluded: “It is clear that the financial services sector is disproportionately affected.”

In other words, the uncertain fate of the financial services industry represents the cold, hard reality of Brexit. The public need to know exactly what the stakes are. McDonnell could be the one to spell this out, and he shouldn't be ashamed by the fact - any more than his Labour predecessors should be for bailing out the banks. But doing so requires mustering up at least a little enthusiasm for financial services. Perhaps he’d better ask his Conservative friends for advice. 

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