Banker-hatred expresses a longer, deeper crisis

Financiers' immunity from justice mirrors their insulation from recession.

Why are we so outraged by the Barclays-Libor affair? Silly question really. It is scandalous that traders appear to have manipulated a fundamental market-making interest rate in pursuit of a quick profit. It is emblematic of habits and ethics that steered the British economy onto the rocks in 2007-08. The detail of the story – the brazen emails that lay bare the scam – exude the arrogant sense of entitlement that presents the protagonists in a repulsive light. And it reminds us, when we see Bob Diamond, conspicuously unburdened by judicial investigation or conscience, that the caste of people with the strongest claim to have caused the financial crisis are the same ones who seem least afflicted by its consequences. That provokes our natural sense of injustice.

But there is another layer to public feeling about this issue. It was the subject of an event I attended this morning at the Resolution Foundation, the consistently excellent think tank that dedicates a lot of thought to the problems facing low-to-middle income households. They are famously squeezed (the low-to-middle income households, that is; Resolution are hardly even cramped in their lovely spacious West End office and, outside of Westminster, are not all that famous).

The key observation contained in Resolution analysis – available on their website – is that wages and earnings for most people in Britain stopped growing some time in the middle of the last decade. As the cost of basic goods and services has risen, a process accelerated by some painful bursts of inflation in the last couple of years, people are struggling to keep their heads above the water. Crucially, this process started before the crash and before the recession. It is also a phenomenon recorded in many other developed economies and is especially pronounced and protracted in the US. (For a brilliant account of how wage stagnation is hollowing out the American middle class, read this essay by Ed Luce in the Financial Times. Behind a paywall, sadly.)

In the UK, the trend for decline in wages and the attendant slide in living standards was held back by the growth of tax credits. Shadow Chief Secretary Rachel Reeves spoke at this morning’s event and mounted a vigorous defence of tax credits – generally scorned by the coalition as a tool of deranged Brownian micro-management and first in line for cuts. The other way Britons topped up stagnant wages was private sector borrowing: credit cards, store cards, re-mortgaging, high street lending etc. That, needless to say, was not a terribly sustainable route to prosperity.

An important point that Resolution make (and that Reeves touched on but with characteristic caution) is that, when growth returns to the UK economy, there is no reason why it should do so in a way that solves the longer term structural squeeze on incomes. This is not some abstract question of economic balances. It is probably the issue that will decide the next election. On current trajectories, the overwhelming portion of British voters will reach 2015 feeling poorer, less secure in their jobs - if they have one - and less hopeful for the future than they did in 2010. And that is true even if the economy is growing.

Downing Street are alert to the problem. One reason why fuel duty rises were scrapped this week is that David Cameron and George Osborne badly need to find ways to signal that they have noticed how hard many people are finding it to make ends meet.

One Number 10 advisor told me recently of his conviction that politics for the next decade will come to be dominated by the decline in living standards for ordinary households and the question “so what are you going to about it?” I think he is probably right.

And it is against that backdrop that the Barclays scandal has to be seen. It is not just offensive in some abstract judicial way. It isn’t just scandalous as a case of bad regulation and wickedness unpunished. Seeing what bankers have been up to and suspecting that they might get away with it, when they have escaped the financial consequences of their actions and preserved their rising incomes, is a vicious, sneering affront to the British people. Politics itself will be devalued - more than it already is - if it fails to offer an effective response to their anger.

Rafael Behr is political columnist at the Guardian and former political editor of the New Statesman

How Jim Murphy's mistake cost Labour - and helped make Ruth Davidson

Scottish Labour's former leader's great mistake was to run away from Labour's Scottish referendum, not on it.

The strange revival of Conservative Scotland? Another poll from north of the border, this time from the Times and YouGov, shows the Tories experiencing a revival in Scotland, up to 28 per cent of the vote, enough to net seven extra seats from the SNP.

Adding to the Nationalists’ misery, according to the same poll, they would lose East Dunbartonshire to the Liberal Democrats, reducing their strength in the Commons to a still-formidable 47 seats.

It could be worse than the polls suggest, however. In the elections to the Scottish Parliament last year, parties which backed a No vote in the referendum did better in the first-past-the-post seats than the polls would have suggested – thanks to tactical voting by No voters, who backed whichever party had the best chance of beating the SNP.

The strategic insight of Ruth Davidson, the Conservative leader in Scotland, was to to recast her party as the loudest defender of the Union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. She has absorbed large chunks of that vote from the Liberal Democrats and Labour, but, paradoxically, at the Holyrood elections at least, the “Unionist coalition” she assembled helped those parties even though it cost the vote share.

The big thing to watch is not just where the parties of the Union make gains, but where they successfully form strong second-places against whoever the strongest pro-Union party is.

Davidson’s popularity and eye for a good photo opportunity – which came first is an interesting question – mean that the natural benefactor in most places will likely be the Tories.

But it could have been very different. The first politician to hit successfully upon the “last defender of the Union” routine was Ian Murray, the last Labour MP in Scotland, who squeezed both the  Liberal Democrat and Conservative vote in his seat of Edinburgh South.

His then-leader in Scotland, Jim Murphy, had a different idea. He fought the election in 2015 to the SNP’s left, with the slogan of “Whether you’re Yes, or No, the Tories have got to go”.  There were a couple of problems with that approach, as one  former staffer put it: “Firstly, the SNP weren’t going to put the Tories in, and everyone knew it. Secondly, no-one but us wanted to move on [from the referendum]”.

Then again under different leadership, this time under Kezia Dugdale, Scottish Labour once again fought a campaign explicitly to the left of the SNP, promising to increase taxation to blunt cuts devolved from Westminster, and an agnostic position on the referendum. Dugdale said she’d be open to voting to leave the United Kingdom if Britain left the European Union. Senior Scottish Labour figures flirted with the idea that the party might be neutral in a forthcoming election. Once again, the party tried to move on – but no-one else wanted to move on.

How different things might be if instead of running away from their referendum campaign, Jim Murphy had run towards it in 2015. 

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

0800 7318496