Cameron wants to reduce private debt - but when and how?

A rapid repayment of debt is a recipe for recession, not recovery.

According to reports this morning, David Cameron will use his conference speech this afternoon to call on Britain's households to pay down their debts. He will say that dealing with debt means not just paying down public debt but also "households - all of us - paying off the credit card and store card bills." Such comments would go beyond the government's existing argument about the importance of dealing with the public deficit to an argument that about reducing the UK's levels of personal debt.

What are we to make of this new message? In one sense it fits with the government's wider narrative of Britain having maxed out the nation's credit card. In this respect, Cameron's comments are a statement of the obvious, albeit an important one. The UK's household debt levels remain crushingly high both by historical and international standards. Sooner or later it's vital that they come down. The Prime Minister is also right to say that this was no ordinary recession, and that this will be no ordinary recovery.

But in another sense the comments are a dramatic and risky escalation of the government's argument on debt. That's because, although they fit the government's story, they run counter to the economic logic that underlies the current forecasts for UK recovery. As we pointed out earlier this year, the most recent forecasts from the Office Budget of Responsibility, published in March, say that the UK's stock of personal debt will rise, not fall, in the coming years - and not by a little but by a lot. The OBR projects that household debt will grow from £1.6 trillion in 2011 to £2.1 trillion in 2015, a rise from 160 percent of household disposable income to 175 percent. That growth is expected to sit alongside low savings, with the ratio of household saving to disposable income falling to roughly 3.5 percent - half its average over the past 50 years.

In the current economic climate, it's hard to overstate the importance of this difference of opinion over what will - or what should - happen to household debt. Put simply, the OBR's projections for growth rest on their forecasts for household consumption, which rest on their forecasts for household debt. If the OBR were to be proved wrong on debt - if it were to fall rather than rise - then their forecasts for consumption would presumably need to be downgraded, as would their forecasts for growth.

The following chart puts this is all into stark perspective. In all recent recessions in the UK, consumption growth had returned at this point, airlifting the economy to recovery. By contrast, today's trends in household consumption are a millstone around the neck of the economy.

Household consumption following the onset of recession
% fall in real total household consumption

A

As well as running against OBR forecasts, the Prime Minister's message doesn't chime with the current reality of the household behaviour. Savings are currently falling not rising. The most recent data revealed that the household savings ratio had dipped from 5.1 to 4.6 percent. A recent poll carried out for the Resolution Foundation by ipsos MORI helped to explain why: almost half of all people on low-to-middle incomes now say they are running out of cash every month, and more than one in four say they're unable to make regular savings. People aren't overspending - they are reducing their savings just to stay afloat.

Of course, none of this is to deny that private debt must fall. The question is: when and how? Reducing the UK's stock of personal debt is likely to be a slow process. It needs to take place via a careful paying down of bills on the back of a recovery of real earnings, enabling families to save a bit more without immediate and dramatic reductions in consumption. The alternative option - a rapid repayment of debt at a time of falling incomes, fragile consumption, rapidly weakening export markets, and sharp public sector cuts - is a recipe for recession, not recovery. The Prime Minister should be careful what he wishes for.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.