Double-dip recession: don't say we didn't warn you

We warned in 2009 that Osborne had no plan for growth.

While many are wise after the event, the New Statesman was warning of the danger of a double-dip recession as long ago as March 2010 (see our cover of 29 March 2010, above ). Our economics editor David Blanchflower rightly predicted that premature withdrawal of fiscal stimulus would strangle growth and raise unemployment, particularly among the young.

In the wake of George Osborne's "emergency Budget" in June 2010, he wrote:

I am now convinced that as a result of this reckless Budget the UK will suffer a double-dip recession or worse

Before that, he warned in October 2009:

Lesson number one in a deep recession is you don't cut public spending until you are into the boom phase. John Maynard Keynes taught us that. The euro area appears to be heading back into recession and the austerity measures being introduced in certain eurozone countries, especially those in Germany, will inevitably lower UK growth, too. It is extremely unlikely, therefore, that net trade will leap to our rescue. taught us that. The consequence of cutting too soon is that you drive the economy into a depression, with the attendant threats of rapidly rising unemployment, social disorder, rising poverty, falling living standards and even soup kitchens.

At a time when Osborne was being hailed by much of the British press as the country's economic saviour, we warned that he had no plan for growth. In October 2009, an NS leader argued:

Mr Osborne is a skilful politician, with a flair for rhetoric and the easy headline - the latest example being his opportunistic statements on curtailing bankers' bonuses, something that could be achieved only through concerted international co-operation. The only economic plan he seems to have is for attempting to balance the books. He does not have a plan for growth. He has a plan for a lack of growth.

In August 2010, we warned that "in spite of Mr Osborne's doctrinaire "emergency" Budget, all the economic data suggests that the UK is facing a deadly combination of rising unemployment, falling house prices, diminished consumer confidence and low - if not negative - growth for the rest of the year and beyond."

But not everyone was so doubtful about Osborne's ability to stimulate growth. Here are some influential figures and institutions who may now regret their early optimism.

And ... some who got it wrong

"The UK economy is on the mend. Economic recovery is underway, unemployment has stabilized, and financial sector health has improved. The government's strong and credible multi-year fiscal deficit reduction plan is essential to ensure debt sustainability."

IMF, 27 September 2010

"The Chancellor has achieved his twin objectives of setting out a credible plan for the public finances and producing a convincing growth strategy for the longer-term ... This Budget is the UK's first important step on the long journey back to economic health."

Richard Lambert, CBI Director-General, 25 June 2010

"George Osborne has faced up to the challenge. The economy needed faster and deeper deficit reduction and that's exactly what the Chancellor has delivered ... We do not believe the Budget will threaten economic recovery. Quite the contrary, it is likely to improve the economic outlook by showing the public finances are finally being brought under control."

Miles Templeman, Director General of the Institute of Directors, 22 June 2010

"The Budget announced today by the U.K. Chancellor of the Exchequer is a courageous move ... It provides the necessary degree of fiscal consolidation over the coming years to restore public finances to a sustainable path, while still supporting the recovery."

Angel Gurría, secretary general of the OECD, 22 June 2010

"We are relatively sanguine about the UK's ability to grow through the fiscal tightening. In an open economy, robust global growth - and that's what it's looking like at the moment - does quite a bit of the work."

Ben Broadbent, Goldman Sachs, 3 January 2011

"Now for one prediction: consumer spending will be squeezed by the regrettable (and avoidable) hike in Vat and from the (necessary) cuts in spending. But reduced debt-financed spending will go hand in hand with growth in private investment and exports, partly thanks to strong global demand, thus cushioning most of the impact. The years ahead will be very tough - but there will be no double dip recession made in Downing Street."

Allister Heath, City AM editor, 24 June 2010

"The UK economy will be the surprise success of Europe in 2011 ... The enterprise culture of SMEs, exports and the strong corporate sector will all help recovery, which will be in the Midlands as well as in the south-east."

Nick Bosanquet, Imperial College London and Reform, 3 January 2011

Our cover from 29 March 2010.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Is defeat in Stoke the beginning of the end for Paul Nuttall?

The Ukip leader was his party's unity candidate. But after his defeat in Stoke, the old divisions are beginning to show again

In a speech to Ukip’s spring conference in Bolton on February 17, the party’s once and probably future leader Nigel Farage laid down the gauntlet for his successor, Paul Nuttall. Stoke’s by-election was “fundamental” to the future of the party – and Nuttall had to win.
 
One week on, Nuttall has failed that test miserably and thrown the fundamental questions hanging over Ukip’s future into harsh relief. 

For all his bullish talk of supplanting Labour in its industrial heartlands, the Ukip leader only managed to increase the party’s vote share by 2.2 percentage points on 2015. This paltry increase came despite Stoke’s 70 per cent Brexit majority, and a media narrative that was, until the revelations around Nuttall and Hillsborough, talking the party’s chances up.
 
So what now for Nuttall? There is, for the time being, little chance of him resigning – and, in truth, few inside Ukip expected him to win. Nuttall was relying on two well-rehearsed lines as get-out-of-jail free cards very early on in the campaign. 

The first was that the seat was a lowly 72 on Ukip’s target list. The second was that he had been leader of party whose image had been tarnished by infighting both figurative and literal for all of 12 weeks – the real work of his project had yet to begin. 

The chances of that project ever succeeding were modest at the very best. After yesterday’s defeat, it looks even more unlikely. Nuttall had originally stated his intention to run in the likely by-election in Leigh, Greater Manchester, when Andy Burnham wins the Greater Manchester metro mayoralty as is expected in May (Wigan, the borough of which Leigh is part, voted 64 per cent for Brexit).

If he goes ahead and stands – which he may well do – he will have to overturn a Labour majority of over 14,000. That, even before the unedifying row over the veracity of his Hillsborough recollections, was always going to be a big challenge. If he goes for it and loses, his leadership – predicated as it is on his supposed ability to win votes in the north - will be dead in the water. 

Nuttall is not entirely to blame, but he is a big part of Ukip’s problem. I visited Stoke the day before The Guardian published its initial report on Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims, and even then Nuttall’s campaign manager admitted that he was unlikely to convince the “hard core” of Conservative voters to back him. 

There are manifold reasons for this, but chief among them is that Nuttall, despite his newfound love of tweed, is no Nigel Farage. Not only does he lack his name recognition and box office appeal, but the sad truth is that the Tory voters Ukip need to attract are much less likely to vote for a party led by a Scouser whose platform consists of reassuring working-class voters their NHS and benefits are safe.
 
It is Farage and his allies – most notably the party’s main donor Arron Banks – who hold the most power over Nuttall’s future. Banks, who Nuttall publicly disowned as a non-member after he said he was “sick to death” of people “milking” the Hillsborough disaster, said on the eve of the Stoke poll that Ukip had to “remain radical” if it wanted to keep receiving his money. Farage himself has said the party’s campaign ought to have been “clearer” on immigration. 

Senior party figures are already briefing against Nuttall and his team in the Telegraph, whose proprietors are chummy with the beer-swilling Farage-Banks axis. They deride him for his efforts to turn Ukip into “NiceKip” or “Nukip” in order to appeal to more women voters, and for the heavy-handedness of his pitch to Labour voters (“There were times when I wondered whether I’ve got a purple rosette or a red one on”, one told the paper). 

It is Nuttall’s policy advisers - the anti-Farage awkward squad of Suzanne Evans, MEP Patrick O’Flynn (who famously branded Farage "snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive") and former leadership candidate Lisa Duffy – come in for the harshest criticism. Herein lies the leader's almost impossible task. Despite having pitched to members as a unity candidate, the two sides’ visions for Ukip are irreconcilable – one urges him to emulate Trump (who Nuttall says he would not have voted for), and the other urges a more moderate tack. 

Endorsing his leader on Question Time last night, Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell blamed the legacy of the party’s Tea Party-inspired 2015 general election campaign, which saw Farage complain about foreigners with HIV using the NHS in ITV’s leaders debate, for the party’s poor performance in Stoke. Others, such as MEP Bill Etheridge, say precisely the opposite – that Nuttall must be more like Farage. 

Neither side has yet called for Nuttall’s head. He insists he is “not going anywhere”. With his febrile party no stranger to abortive coup and counter-coup, he is unlikely to be the one who has the final say.