Who is left defending George Osborne?

The economists have deserted him, and business leaders are nowhere to be heard.

So far, we have heard from 13 of the 20 economists who signed the now-infamous letter to George Osborne in the Sunday Times in February 2010, in which they argued that:

[The] government's goal should be to eliminate the structural current Budget deficit over the course of a parliament.

Eleven of the economists responded to the New Statesman's request for a comment, two and a half years on. Of those, nine admitted that the changed situation had caused them to change their minds; one, Albert Marcet of Spain, remained supportive of Osborne; and the eleventh, Oxford's John Vickers, declined to comment either way.

Since then, two further signatories have got in touch with the Daily Telegraph to confirm that they, too, remain supportive. But what of the other seven? Will they admit they got it wrong; stake their colours ever firmer to a dying idea; or take the cowards' way out? We are still waiting to hear from:

  • Sir Howard Davies, then of the London School of Economics, now working for France's Science Po
  • Meghnad Desai, formerly of the London School of Economics
  • Andrew Turnbull, former Cabinet Secretary
  • Orazio Attanasio of University College London
  • John Muellbauer of Nuffield College, Oxford
  • Thomas Sargent of New York University, joint winner of 2011 Nobel prize in economics
  • Anne Sibert of Birkbeck College

The economists aren't the only letter writers who should be embarrassed of their record. What about the 35 businesspeople who signed, corralled by CCHQ, their own letter in October 2010, to the Telegraph, which began:

It has been suggested that the deficit reduction programme set out by George Osborne in his emergency Budget should be watered down and spread over more than one parliament. We believe that this would be a mistake.

This letter was signed by the 34 men and one woman in their personal capacities, but some of them have surely been hit hard by the collapse in confidence which has ensued in the last two years. Andy Bond, ASDA's former chairman, can't be too happy about the impact the weak economy has had on his old company's sales growth, for instance.

Of course, some are unlikely to recant no matter what the evidence. Party-funding transparency website Search the Money reveals that five of the 35 are donors to the Tories, with donations totalling over half a million pounds between them.

Will any of the business leaders recant? The full list, including positions in 2010, is below. The New Statesman awaits their response.

  • Will Adderley, CEO, Dunelm Group
  • Robert Bensoussan, Chairman, L.K. Bennett
  • Andy Bond, Chairman, ASDA
  • Ian Cheshire, Chief Executive, Kingfisher
  • Gerald Corbett, Chairman, SSL International,, Britvic
  • Peter Cullum, Executive Chairman, Towergate
  • Tej Dhillon, Chairman and CEO, Dhillon Group
  • Philip Dilley, Chairman, Arup
  • Charles Dunstone, Chairman, Carphone Warehouse Group, Chairman, TalkTalk Telecom Group
  • Warren East, CEO, ARM Holdings
  • Gordon Frazer, Managing Director, Microsoft UK
  • Sir Christopher Gent, Non-Executive Chairman, GlaxoSmithKline
  • Ben Gordon, Chief Executive, Mothercare
  • Anthony Habgood, Chairman, Whitbread , Chairman, Reed Elsevier
  • Aidan Heavey, Chief Executive, Tullow Oil
  • Neil Johnson, Chairman, UMECO
  • Nick Leslau, Chairman, Prestbury Group
  • Ian Livingston, CEO, BT Group
  • Ruby McGregor-Smith, CEO, MITIE Group
  • Rick Medlock, CFO, Inmarsat; Non-Executive Director, The Betting Group
  • John Nelson, Chairman, Hammerson
  • Stefano Pessina, Executive Chairman, Alliance Boots
  • Nick Prest, Chairman, AVEVA
  • Nick Robertson, CEO, ASOS
  • Sir Stuart Rose, Chairman, Marks & Spencer
  • Tim Steiner, CEO, Ocado
  • Andrew Sukawaty, Chairman and CEO, Inmarsat
  • Michael Turner, Executive Chairman, Fuller, Smith and Turner
  • Moni Varma,Chairman,Veetee
  • Paul Walker, Chief Executive, Sage
  • Paul Walsh, Chief Executive, Diageo
  • Robert Walters, CEO, Robert Walters
  • Joseph Wan, Chief Executive, Harvey Nichols
  • Bob Wigley, Chairman, Expansys, Stonehaven Associates, Yell Group
  • Simon Wolfson, Chief Executive, Next

Read David Blanchflower's most recent column for the New Statesman, "Perhaps Iain Duncan Smith will accuse me of peeing on the data", here

Lord Wolfson, one of Osborne's defenders. Photograph: Getty Images

David Blanchflower is economics editor of the New Statesman and professor of economics at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

I'm far from convinced by Cameron's plans for Syria

The Prime Minister has a plan for when the bombs drop. But what about after?

In the House of Commons today, the Prime Minister set out a powerful case for Britain to join air strikes against Isil in Syria.  Isil, he argued, poses a direct threat to Britain and its people, and Britain should not be in the business of “outsourcing our security to our allies”. And while he conceded that further airstrikes alone would not be sufficient to beat Isil, he made the case for an “Isil first” strategy – attacking Isil now, while continuing to do what we can diplomatically to help secure a lasting settlement for Syria in which Assad (eventually) plays no part.

I agreed with much of David Cameron’s analysis. And no-one should doubt either the murderous barbarism of Isil in the region, or the barbarism they foment and inspire in others across the world.  But at the end of his lengthy Q&A session with MPs, I remained unconvinced that UK involvement in airstrikes in Syria was the right option. Because the case for action has to be a case for action that has a chance of succeeding.  And David Cameron’s case contained neither a plan for winning the war, nor a plan for winning the peace.

The Prime Minister, along with military experts and analysts across the world, concedes that air strikes alone will not defeat Isil, and that (as in Iraq) ground forces are essential if we want to rid Syria of Isil. But what is the plan to assemble these ground forces so necessary for a successful mission?  David Cameron’s answer today was more a hope than a plan. He referred to “70,000 Syrian opposition fighters - principally the Free Syrian Army (FSA) – with whom we can co-ordinate attacks on Isil”.

But it is an illusion to think that these fighters can provide the ground forces needed to complement aerial bombardment of Isil.  Many commentators have begun to doubt whether the FSA continues to exist as a coherent operational entity over the past few months. Coralling the myriad rebel groups into a disciplined force capable of fighting and occupying Isil territory is a heroic ambition, not a plan. And previous efforts to mobilize the rebels against Isil have been utter failures. Last month the Americans abandoned a $500m programme to train and turn 5,400 rebel fighters into a disciplined force to fight Isil. They succeeded in training just 60 fighters. And there have been incidents of American-trained fighters giving some of their US-provided equipment to the Nusra Front, an affiliate of Al Qaeda.

Why has it proven so hard to co-opt rebel forces in the fight against Isil? Because most of the various rebel groups are fighting a war against Assad, not against Isil.  Syria’s civil war is gruesome and complex, but it is fundamentally a Civil War between Assad’s forces and a variety of opponents of Assad’s regime. It would be a mistake for Britain to base a case for military action against Isil on the hope that thousands of disparate rebel forces can be persuaded to change their enemy – especially when the evidence so far is that they won’t.

This is a plan for military action that, at present, looks highly unlikely to succeed.  But what of the plan for peace? David Cameron today argued for the separation of the immediate task at hand - to strike against Isil in Syria – from the longer-term ambition of achieving a settlement in Syria and removing Assad.  But for Isil to be beaten, the two cannot be separated. Because it is only by making progress in developing a credible and internationally-backed plan for a post-Assad Syria that we will persuade Syrian Sunnis that fighting Isil will not end up helping Assad win the Civil War.  If we want not only to rely on rebel Sunnis to provide ground troops against Isil, but also provide stable governance in Isil-occupied areas when the bombing stops, progress on a settlement to Syria’s Civil War is more not less urgent.  Without it, the reluctance of Syrian Sunnis to think that our fight is their fight will undermine the chances of military efforts to beat Isil and bring basic order to the regions they control. 

This points us towards doubling down on the progress that has already been made in Vienna: working with the USA, France, Syria’s neighbours and the Gulf states, as well as Russia and Iran. We need not just a combined approach to ending the conflict, but the prospect of a post-war Syria that offers a place for those whose cooperation we seek to defeat Isil. No doubt this will strike some as insufficient in the face of the horrors perpetrated by Isil. But I fear that if we want not just to take action against Isil but to defeat them and prevent their return, it offers a better chance of succeeding than David Cameron’s proposal today. 

Stewart Wood is a former Shadow Cabinet minister and adviser to Ed Miliband. He tweets as @StewartWood.