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.

Getty
Show Hide image

Everyone's forgotten the one issue that united the Labour party

There was a time when Ed Miliband spoke at Momentum rallies.

To label the row over the EU at Thursday’s Labour leadership hustings "fireworks" would be to endow it with more beauty than it deserves. Owen Smith’s dogged condemnation of John McDonnell’s absence from a Remain rally – only for Corbyn to point out that his absence was for medical reasons – ought to go down as a cringing new low point in the campaign. 

Not so long ago, we were all friends. In the course of the EU referendum, almost all of the protagonists in the current debacle spoke alongside each other and praised one another’s efforts. At a local level, party activists of all stripes joined forces. Two days before polling day, Momentum activists helped organise an impromptu rally. Ed Miliband was the headline speaker, and was cheered on. 

If you take the simple version of the debate, Labour’s schism on the EU appears as an aberration of the usual dynamics of left and right in the party. Labour's left is supposedly cheering a position which avoids advocating what it believes in (Remain), because it would lose votes. Meanwhile, the right claims to be dying in a ditch for its principles - no matter what the consequences for Labour’s support in Leave-voting heartlands.

Smith wants to oppose Brexit, even after the vote, on the basis of using every available procedural mechanism. He would whip MPs against the invocation of Article 50, refuse to implement it in government, and run on a manifesto of staying in the EU. For the die-hard Europhiles on the left – and I count myself among these, having run the Another Europe is Possible campaign during the referendum – there ought to be no contest as to who to support. On a result that is so damaging to people’s lives and so rooted in prejudice, how could we ever accept that there is such a thing as a "final word"? 

And yet, on the basic principles that lie behind a progressive version of EU membership, such as freedom of movement, Smith seems to contradict himself. Right at the outset of the Labour leadership, Smith took to Newsnight to express his view – typical of many politicians moulded in the era of New Labour – that Labour needed to “listen” to the views Leave voters by simply adopting them, regardless of whether or not they were right. There were, he said, “too many” immigrants in some parts of the country. 

Unlike Smith, Corbyn has not made his post-Brexit policy a headline feature of the campaign, and it is less widely understood. But it is clear, via the five "red lines" outlined by John McDonnell at the end of June:

  1. full access to the single market
  2. membership of the European investment bank
  3. access to trading rights for financial services sector
  4. full residency rights for all EU nationals in the UK and all UK nationals in the EU, and
  5. the enshrinement of EU protections for workers. 

Without these five conditions being met, Labour would presumably not support the invocation of Article 50. So if, as seems likely, a Conservative government would never meet these five conditions, would there be any real difference in how a Corbyn leadership would handle the situation? 

The fight over the legacy of the referendum is theatrical at times. The mutual mistrust last week played out on the stage in front of a mass televised audience. Some Corbyn supporters jeered Smith as he made the case for another referendum. Smith accused Corbyn of not even voting for Remain, and wouldn’t let it go. But, deep down, the division is really about a difference of emphasis. 

It speaks to a deeper truth about the future of Britain in Europe. During the referendum, the establishment case for Remain floundered because it refused to make the case that unemployment and declining public services were the result of austerity, not immigrants. Being spearheaded by Conservatives, it couldn’t. It fell to the left to offer the ideological counter attack that was needed – and we failed to reach enough people. 

As a result, what we got was a popular mandate for petty racism and a potentially long-term shift to the right in British politics, endangering a whole raft of workplace and legal protections along the way. Now that it has happened, anyone who really hopes to overcome either Brexit, or the meaning of Brexit, has to address the core attitudes and debates at their root. Then as now, it is only clear left-wing ideas – free from any attempt to triangulate towards anti-migrant sentiment– that can have any hope of success. 

The real dividing lines in Labour are not about the EU. If they were, the Eurosceptic Frank Field would not be backing Smith. For all that it may be convenient to deny it, Europe was once, briefly, the issue that united the Labour Party. One day, the issues at stake in the referendum may do so again – but only if Labour consolidates itself around a strategy for convincing people of ideas, rather than simply reaching for procedural levers.