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.

Getty
Show Hide image

The deafening killer - why noise will be the next great pollution scandal

A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. 

Our cities are being poisoned by a toxin that surrounds us day and night. It eats away at our brains, hurts our hearts, clutches at our sleep, and gnaws at the quality of our daily lives.

Hardly a silent killer, it gets short shrift compared to the well-publicised terrors of air pollution and sugars food. It is the dull, thumping, stultifying drum-beat of perpetual noise.

The score that accompanies city life is brutal and constant. It disrupts the everyday: The coffee break ruined by the screech of a line of double decker buses braking at the lights. The lawyer’s conference call broken by drilling as she makes her way to the office. The writer’s struggle to find a quiet corner to pen his latest article.

For city-dwellers, it’s all-consuming and impossible to avoid. Construction, traffic, the whirring of machinery, the neighbour’s stereo. Even at home, the beeps and buzzes made by washing machines, fridges, and phones all serve to distract and unsettle.

But the never-ending noisiness of city life is far more than a problem of aesthetics. A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. Recent studies have linked noise pollution to hearing loss, sleep deprivation, hypertension, heart disease, brain development, and even increased risk of dementia.

One research team compared families living on different stories of the same building in Manhattan to isolate the impact of noise on health and education. They found children in lower, noisier floors were worse at reading than their higher-up peers, an effect that was most pronounced for children who had lived in the building for longest.

Those studies have been replicated for the impact of aircraft noise with similar results. Not only does noise cause higher blood pressure and worsens quality of sleep, it also stymies pupils trying to concentrate in class.

As with many forms of pollution, the poorest are typically the hardest hit. The worst-off in any city often live by busy roads in poorly-insulated houses or flats, cheek by jowl with packed-in neighbours.

The US Department of Transport recently mapped road and aircraft noise across the United States. Predictably, the loudest areas overlapped with some of the country’s most deprived. Those included the south side of Atlanta and the lowest-income areas of LA and Seattle.

Yet as noise pollution grows in line with road and air traffic and rising urban density, public policy has turned a blind eye.

Council noise response services, formally a 24-hour defence against neighbourly disputes, have fallen victim to local government cuts. Decisions on airport expansion and road development pay scant regard to their audible impact. Political platforms remain silent on the loudest poison.

This is odd at a time when we have never had more tools at our disposal to deal with the issue. Electric Vehicles are practically noise-less, yet noise rarely features in the arguments for their adoption. Just replacing today’s bus fleet would transform city centres; doing the same for taxis and trucks would amount to a revolution.

Vehicles are just the start. Millions were spent on a programme of “Warm Homes”; what about “Quiet Homes”? How did we value the noise impact in the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow, and how do we compensate people now that it’s going ahead?

Construction is a major driver of decibels. Should builders compensate “noise victims” for over-drilling? Or could regulation push equipment manufacturers to find new ways to dampen the sound of their kit?

Of course, none of this addresses the noise pollution we impose on ourselves. The bars and clubs we choose to visit or the music we stick in our ears. Whether pumping dance tracks in spin classes or indie rock in trendy coffee shops, people’s desire to compensate for bad noise out there by playing louder noise in here is hard to control for.

The Clean Air Act of 1956 heralded a new era of city life, one where smog and grime gave way to clear skies and clearer lungs. That fight still goes on today.

But some day, we will turn our attention to our clogged-up airwaves. The decibels will fall. #Twitter will give way to twitter. And every now and again, as we step from our homes into city life, we may just hear the sweetest sound of all. Silence.

Adam Swersky is a councillor in Harrow and is cabinet member for finance. He writes in a personal capacity.