The revolt against Osborne grows

Lib Dem MPs join economists in calling for a change of course.

Our exclusive story on how once supportive economists have turned against George Osborne has made the front page of today's Guardian, with the rest of Fleet Street, including the Mail and the Telegraph, also following up the piece, which appears in full in this week's magazine.

The Guardian leads on this week's New Statesman cover story.

And there's more bad news for Osborne today. The FT's Kiran Stacey reports that Lib Dem MPs are also now urging Osborne to take advantage of the UK's record low borrowing rates and stimulate growth through higher capital spending. John Pugh, the co-author of the party's 2010 economic policy, tells the paper:

We need to look again very carefully at the implications of the sharp reduction we have seen in capital expenditure.

There are a fair number of people who think that if we returned to the plans as conceived by Vince Cable . . . we would be in a slightly healthier position than we are.

Pugh is right. Osborne's decision to reduce capital expenditure - the most valuable spending, according to the OBR - by 48% (£24.3bn) is one of the main reasons why the UK, with the exception of Italy, is the only G20 member in recession.

When it was pointed out to Pugh that it would be difficult for the Chancellor to perform such a U-turn, he rightly replied:

The situation is serious enough now for people not to be bothered about what you call the plan.

Two other MPs - Annette Brooke and John Leech - make similar calls, and a senior economic adviser to the party comments: "We may have to resort to emergency measures to stimulate demand. We have already let the timetable on eliminating the deficit slip: we may have to do that again."

Perhaps most significantly, Stacey reports that party president Tim Farron is being urged by the Lib Dem leadership to call for deficit-funded spending "in order to give Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, a mandate to argue for it at the top of government."

The Lib Dems' restlessnes is unsurprising. As even the IMF has stated, there is no evidence that a reduced pace of deficit reduction would trigger a rise in British bond yields. With investors increasingly reluctant to lend to eurozone countries, the UK is, as Osborne has observed, a "safe haven". Yet, for no other reason other than political pride, the Chancellor is unwilling to change direction. Borrowing for growth would be a tacit admission that his nemesis, Ed Balls, was right and he was wrong. But until Osborne is prepared to take this step, there is no prospect of recovery, for either the economy or his party.

George Osborne is under increasing pressure to stimulate growth through higher infrastructure spending. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.