How austerity and the financial sector broke Portugal

It did everything the fiscal hawks wanted – and still had to ask for a bailout.

After many agonising weeks and months, Portugal has become the latest country to concede defeat to the financial markets and request an EU/IMF emergency loan. Despite ostensibly doing as the markets told them and passing three austerity budgets, the Portuguese continued to have their credit rating cut. The cost of borrowing is now so high that they were left with little alternative.

Portugal's tragedy is that its government did what it was told and still got punished. It slashed public spending, wages and pensions to appease the financial markets and the austerity hawks who dominate European politics. Furthermore, the need for a bailout became inevitable when the minority Socialist government was brought down by the refusal of the conservative and other minor parties to support its latest austerity budget.

Portuguese conservatives have since taken to the airwaves to decry the failure of the Socialist government, conveniently ignoring the fact that an EU/IMF bailout will impose far more stringent cuts and a high interest rate on any loan it grants. This disgracefully cowardly move by the EU Commission president José Manuel Barosso's own party deserves to bring punishment for the party by the Portuguese electorate when elections are held, presumably after the bailout is finally agreed.

With characteristic bravado, George Osborne used Portugal's misery as proof the Britain would be in similar danger if his austerity plans were not followed. The sheer dishonesty of this has already been exposed by the likes of George Eaton and Will Straw.

The strength of UK government bonds is envied the world over. While Portugal was struggling to get even six-month loans at below 5 per cent interest rates, Britain is charged around 3.4 per cent on bonds that mature every 14 years.

In fact, however, the case of Portugal shows that austerity simply is not working. On the BBC's Question Time on 7 April, the Culture Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, and the Lib Dem MP Jo Swinson trotted out the coalition line that the coalition's front-loaded spending cuts are the only way to cut the Budget deficit. This is what the markets have told Portugal, Spain, Ireland and others to do. It has not worked. On the contrary, all have suffered a series of credit rating downgrades. These countries, like Britain, are not growing and so their deficits will remain large. It is no coincidence that Britain's public-sector borrowing requirement has been revised up several times by the Office for Budgetary Responsibility.

What the Portuguese case has also shown definitively is that elected politicians, particularly in smaller countries, are now completely powerless in the face of financial capital and the credit rating agencies. If the past few years have proved anything, it is that there is one rule for big banks and another for countries. Anyone who doubts this should ask why European banks continue to be allowed access to unlimited loans at 1 per cent interest rates from the European Central Bank, while the likes of Greece, Spain, Ireland and Portugal have had their borrowing costs soar in some cases to 10 per cent.

Indeed, it is little reported by the media what big banks have done with these blank cheques. As well as using them to cover the black holes in their balance sheets caused by the sub-prime crisis, they have pumped billions into buying up short-term government debt at high interest rates. In doing so, they've made a fortune, and because of the EU's "bailout" fund, they are able to keep doing so in the knowledge that the EU will not allow any of its member states to default.

The only conclusion to be drawn is that the financial sector is too powerful and too big to fail, and has offloaded its risks on to individual countries and the EU. This is a profound threat to democracy.

Now the focus of the financial markets, scenting blood in the water, will most likely move to Spain. Unlike Greece and Ireland, Spain has sound public finances and is several years into a concerted plan to reduce government borrowing. Its systemic problem is its unemployment rate, which is the highest in the EU and has reached 40 per cent among 18-to-25-year-olds. Yet Spain is not the only country in the EU with a systemic problem. Italy has high unemployment and a huge government debt-to-GDP ratio.

The challenge for the left across Europe is to use this ammunition to win the debate on how to reduce budget deficits and show the public that we have yet to tame the financial sector.

In his New Statesman interview this week, Nick Clegg talked of how the Liberal Democrats are working to "rebalance the British economy". They are doing no such thing. In fact, the financial sector has returned to business as usual. Flush with cheap money that it has ploughed into offering small government loans at eye-watering expensive prices, it is loading enormous debts on to millions of Europeans and their children.

There are two very obvious lessons from Europe's debt crisis. One is that austerity and the obsession of deficit fetishists is not saving indebted countries. The second is that the financial sector has found a new way to make easy money and hold countries to ransom at the same time. If these lessons are not learned, and fast, Europe's debt tower will eventually collapse.

Benjamin Fox is political adviser to the Socialist and Democrat group in the European Parliament.

Getty
Show Hide image

Celebrate Labour's electoral success - but don't forget the working class

The shutting down of genuine, constructive debate on the left is the great danger we face. 

In the moment when the exit poll was released on 8 June, after seven weeks of slogging up and down the streets of Britain, dealing with scepticism, doubt and sometimes downright hostility, we felt a combination of relief, optimism, even euphoria.
 
This election broke wide open some assumptions that have constrained us on the left for too long; that the young won’t vote, that any one individual or political party is “unelectable”, that perceptions of both individuals, parties and even policies cannot change suddenly and dramatically. It reminded us that courage, ambition and hope are what’s needed and what have been missing from our politics, too often, for too long.
 
We have learnt to tread carefully and wear our values lightly. But in recent weeks we have remembered that our convictions can, as Jonathan Freedland once wrote, “bring hope flickering back to life” and meet the growing appetite for a politics that doesn’t simply rail against what is but aspires to build a world that is better.
 
In this election at least, it seems the final, anticipated fracture of Labour from its working-class base after Brexit did not materialise. Shortly before the snap election was called I wrote that while Brexit appeared to be Labour’s greatest weakness, it could just be our biggest strength, because: “consider what remain voting Tottenham and leave voting Wigan have in common: Labour… We will succeed if we seek the common ground shared by the decent, sensible majority, and more importantly, so will Britain.”
 
But consider this too. The Tories ran a terrible campaign. It was, without any doubt,the most inept, counter-productive campaign I’ve ever seen in British politics. The day their manifesto hit the headlines, even in our toughest neighbourhoods, we could feel change in the air. Arrogance is never rewarded by the British people and Theresa May has paid a price for it. Yet, despite a Tory manifesto that was a full, square attack on older people, the majority of over 65s still came out for the Tories.
 
And despite the growing relevance of freedom, internationalism and tolerance in an era characterised by Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, the Liberal Democrats managed to become bystanders in the political debate. They stood on a platform that aimed to capture the support of those remain voters for whom Brexit is the major question, but neglected the rest. And they quite spectacularly failed to foresee that those who were intensely angered by May’s conversion to a little England, hard Brexit stance would vote tactically against the Tories. Over those seven weeks, they all but disappeared as a political force.
 
As Bob Dylan once said, "the times, they are a-changin" – and they will change again. The recent past has moved at extraordinary speed. The Brexit Referendum, the rise and retreat of nationalism, the election of Trump and his crushing unpopularity just a few months later, the reversal in fortunes for May and Jeremy Corbyn, the astonishing phenomenon of Emmanuel Macron and pro-European centrism, and the dramatic rise and sudden collapse of Ukip. Politics, as John Harris wrote last week, is now more fluid than ever. So now is the time, for hope yes, and for conviction too, but not for jubilation. We need some serious thinking. 
 
We should be cautious to rush to judgment. It is only two weeks since the exit poll sent shockwaves across the country. There is no comprehensive explanation for the multitude of motivations that delivered this election result and will not be for some time. But there are some early indictors that must make us think. 
 
After seven years of austerity, as John Curtice observes, the Tories made some of their biggest gains in some of the poorest areas of Britain. It is something I felt in all of the eight constituencies I campaigned in during the election. While the Labour vote rose significantly in towns like Wigan, so too did the Tory vote, despite little or no campaigning activity on the ground. As Rob Ford puts it, “Labour, founded as the party of the working class, and focused on redistributing resources from the rich to the poor, gained the most ground in 2017 in seats with the largest concentrations of middle-class professionals and the rich. The Conservatives, long the party of capital and the middle class, made their largest gains in the poorest seats of England and Wales… Britain’s class politics has been turned completely upside down in 2017”.
 
To acknowledge the growing, longstanding scepticism of many working-class men, and women, towards Labour in towns across England is not to take away from the hard work and drive of the activists, advisers and politicians that helped to fuel such a dramatic turnaround for Labour during the short campaign. To have won considerable gains in wealthier suburbs is no small achievement. 
 
But if the future of Labour lies in a coalition between middle-class young professionals and the working class, what is the glue that binds? While there is shared agreement about investment in public services, how are those interests to be squared on areas like national security and immigration? I believe it can and must be done, but – as I said to conference when I was first elected seven years ago - it will demand that we begin with the difficult questions, not the easy ones.  
 
Just a few days before the election, statistics were released that pointed to a collapse in trade union membership. What does the decline of an organised Labour movement mean for who we are and what we can achieve? These are not new questions. They were posed by Eric Hobsbawm in his brilliant lecture, "The Forward March of Labour Halted" in 1979 - a challenge laid down in the year I was born. Now, 37 years on, we are no further down the road to answering it. 
 
The most dramatic finding from this election was the support Corbyn’s Labour party appears to have won from middle-class, young professionals. They said he couldn’t do it and quite stunningly it seems they were wrong. But a ComRes poll last week caught my eye – by a large margin those 30-44 year olds would favour a new centre-ground political party over the current political settlement. In an election where we returned strongly to two-party politics, it appears they moved to us. But what would a dynamic and renewed Liberal Democrat Party, or a British En Marche do to our support base?
 
After a hellish two years we have learnt in Labour, I hope, that unity matters. The public and private anger directed towards each other, whether the Labour leadership, the parliamentary Labour party or elected councillors, is desperately damaging and its (relative) absence in the campaign was important.
 
But unity is not the same as uniformity, and while two weeks ago I felt there was a real danger of historic fracture, now I believe the shutting down of genuine, constructive debate on the left is the great danger we face, and must avoid. No one person, faction or party has ever had the monopoly on wisdom. The breadth of the Labour movement was and remains our greatest strength. 
 
Consider the Labour manifesto, which drew on every tradition across our movement and demanded that every part of the party had to compromise. Those broad traditions still matter and are still relevant because they hear and are attuned to different parts of Britain. Our country is changing and politics must catch up. The future will be negotiated, not imposed.
 
As we witness the age of "strong man" politics across the world, here in Britain our political culture has become angrier and more illiberal than at any time I can remember. The Brexit debate was characterised by rage, misinformation and a macho political culture that demanded that we abandon nuance and complexity, an understanding of one another and tolerance of different points of view.
 
But this is not where the future of Britain lies: it lies in pluralism. It lies in a politics that is nimbler, more fleet of foot, less constrained; a return to the great tradition of debate, evidence, experience and argument as a way to build broad coalitions and convince people; not shouting one another down, nor believing any of us are always right; an arena in which we listen as much as we speak; a political culture in which we are capable of forming alliances within and across party lines to achieve real, lasting change.
 
And ultimately that’s the prize: not just seek power but, to paraphrase a philosopher whose work inspired millions, in the end “the point is to change it”. We could sit tight in Labour and hope to see the current government fall apart. We might even inherit power, we could temporarily reverse some of the worst of the last seven years, but what then? If we have learnt anything from 13 years of Labour government it should be this: that to build lasting change is the hardest political task of all, and it requires now that we do not turn to the political culture, the tools or even the ideas of the past, but that we think hard about where the future of our movement and our country really lies. Now is not the time to sit back and celebrate. Now is the time to think.

 

Lisa Nandy is the MP for Wigan. She was formerly Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

0800 7318496