A return to tribalism won’t save Labour

The centre left must embrace pluralism if it is to avoid permanent decline.

What is Labour's political purpose and strategy? The fault lines are now becoming clear: to go it alone, or build a wider political alliance?

Dan Hodges, in his usual robust and entertaining style, offers the case for the former through the creation of an alliance within Labour of the working and middle classes. Sound familiar? That's because it is. In effect, it's the big-tent strategy of one Mr T Blair, whom Dan so effectively opposed over ten years, for selling out the Labour cause.

But now it's the big tent as one more heave. And Dan and other leftist supporters of this strategy find themselves firmly anchored to other Labourists of the right such as John Reid. They find common cause in saying No to AV and No to anything that doesn't offer the hope of a majority Labour government that can usher in socialism for our people from above.

So why will this big tent be any different from Blair's, especially when Dan would rather the ringmaster was David Miliband? There is no reason to expect it will. To create such an alliance, all the emphasis will again be on the swing voters in the swing seats that Blair courted so effectively and in so doing stopped Labour being Labour.

Remember how in 1997 Labour won 140,000 new AB votes but lost four million Ds and Es. The big tent doesn't work even as an electoral strategy – let alone for social, economic and political transformation.

To be fair, it did once, in 1945, but that moment, along with the class and culture that spawned it, have long gone. The world has moved on, become more fragmented and complex. Centre-left politics will follow or wither still further.

Two things are interesting here. First, the initial New Labour victory in 1997 was based largely on a pluralist approach to politics – with a strong opening-out to Ashdown, Jenkins and the whole Cook/McLennan process. As Labour retreated to a one-party approach, so its vote collapsed and its radicalism shrank.

The second thing that is interesting is that the extreme tribalists like Dan Hodges and John Reid recognised the power of pluralism through their alliance with David Cameron and George Osborne to smash AV. So they practise pluralism to entrench tribalism. Weird, hey?

Holey misguided

These extreme tribalists are in a hole and want to keep Labour in it. They want the trench warfare of old adversarial politics, despite the fact that the poor are getting poorer and it's palpably not delivering for the left. It is based on "getting the right people elected", whoever these people are. The neoliberals in Labour ranks are bizarrely tolerated and much more social Liberals or egalitarian Greens despised.

Through their victory for keeping first-past-the-post (FPTP) they will try to lock the left into the politics of decline as the 1.6 per cent of the electorate that matters in the dwindling number of swing seats will deform our politics still further. A politics that gives all power to Murdoch and the Mail. As the old parties continue to disappoint under a system that focuses on so few, so voters look elsewhere or withdraw.

It's why FPTP will deliver more hung parliaments as the shared vote of the big two parties, but Labour in particular, drops. Yet such defiant tribalism creates the problem but denies the solution as the likes of Reid exercise their veto over voting reform or coalition-building with other parties, as they did so effectively after the general election last year. It is the politics of permanent opposition through self-marginalisation as they dream of a better 1945.

Labour did badly in the recent elections because it is still pursing the failed strategy and politics of New Labour. It is not offering an alternative political economy and it is refusing, because of the likes of Dan and John Reid, to operate in the world as it is, preferring the comfort of past glories. Ed Miliband – far too tentatively for my liking – is at least trying to push at the boundaries of a politics that will make Labour both social and democratic.

We are going to have to chart a course through the complexities of a world in which the politics of Caroline Lucas, Chris Huhne, Charlie Kennedy and others are less pro-market, more democratic and sustainable than John Reid, Margaret Beckett and David Blunkett. It requires the mobilisation narrative of a Good Society to coalesce and spark into life a progressive majority that can be created – and must be created.

Neal Lawson is chair of Compass.

Neal Lawson is chair of the pressure group Compass, which brings together progressives from all parties and none. His views on internal Labour matters are personal ones. 

Getty
Show Hide image

We're racing towards another private debt crisis - so why did no one see it coming?

The Office for Budget Responsibility failed to foresee the rise in household debt. 

This is a call for a public inquiry on the current situation regarding private debt.

For almost a decade now, since 2007, we have been living a lie. And that lie is preparing to wreak havoc on our economy. If we do not create some kind of impartial forum to discuss what is actually happening, the results might well prove disastrous. 

The lie I am referring to is the idea that the financial crisis of 2008, and subsequent “Great Recession,” were caused by profligate government spending and subsequent public debt. The exact opposite is in fact the case. The crash happened because of dangerously high levels of private debt (a mortgage crisis specifically). And - this is the part we are not supposed to talk about—there is an inverse relation between public and private debt levels.

If the public sector reduces its debt, overall private sector debt goes up. That's what happened in the years leading up to 2008. Now austerity is making it happening again. And if we don't do something about it, the results will, inevitably, be another catastrophe.

The winners and losers of debt

These graphs show the relationship between public and private debt. They are both forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility, produced in 2015 and 2017. 

This is what the OBR was projecting what would happen around now back in 2015:

This year the OBR completely changed its forecast. This is how it now projects things are likely to turn out:

First, notice how both diagrams are symmetrical. What happens on top (that part of the economy that is in surplus) precisely mirrors what happens in the bottom (that part of the economy that is in deficit). This is called an “accounting identity.”

As in any ledger sheet, credits and debits have to match. The easiest way to understand this is to imagine there are just two actors, government, and the private sector. If the government borrows £100, and spends it, then the government has a debt of £100. But by spending, it has injected £100 more pounds into the private economy. In other words, -£100 for the government, +£100 for everyone else in the diagram. 

Similarly, if the government taxes someone for £100 , then the government is £100 richer but there’s £100 subtracted from the private economy (+£100 for government, -£100 for everybody else on the diagram).

So what implications does this kind of bookkeeping have for the overall economy? It means that if the government goes into surplus, then everyone else has to go into debt.

We tend to think of money as if it is a bunch of poker chips already lying around, but that’s not how it really works. Money has to be created. And money is created when banks make loans. Either the government borrows money and injects it into the economy, or private citizens borrow money from banks. Those banks don’t take the money from people’s savings or anywhere else, they just make it up. Anyone can write an IOU. But only banks are allowed to issue IOUs that the government will accept in payment for taxes. (In other words, there actually is a magic money tree. But only banks are allowed to use it.)

There are other factors. The UK has a huge trade deficit (blue), and that means the government (yellow) also has to run a deficit (print money, or more accurately, get banks to do it) to inject into the economy to pay for all those Chinese trainers, American iPads, and German cars. The total amount of money can also fluctuate. But the real point here is, the less the government is in debt, the more everyone else must be. Austerity measures will necessarily lead to rising levels of private debt. And this is exactly what has happened.

Now, if this seems to have very little to do with the way politicians talk about such matters, there's a simple reason: most politicians don’t actually know any of this. A recent survey showed 90 per cent of MPs don't even understand where money comes from (they think it's issued by the Royal Mint). In reality, debt is money. If no one owed anyone anything at all there would be no money and the economy would grind to a halt.

But of course debt has to be owed to someone. These charts show who owes what to whom.

The crisis in private debt

Bearing all this in mind, let's look at those diagrams again - keeping our eye particularly on the dark blue that represents household debt. In the first, 2015 version, the OBR duly noted that there was a substantial build-up of household debt in the years leading up to the crash of 2008. This is significant because it was the first time in British history that total household debts were higher than total household savings, and therefore the household sector itself was in deficit territory. (Corporations, at the same time, were raking in enormous profits.) But it also predicted this wouldn't happen again.

True, the OBR observed, austerity and the reduction of government deficits meant private debt levels would have to go up. However, the OBR economists insisted this wouldn't be a problem because the burden would fall not on households but on corporations. Business-friendly Tory policies would, they insisted, inspire a boom in corporate expansion, which would mean frenzied corporate borrowing (that huge red bulge below the line in the first diagram, which was supposed to eventually replace government deficits entirely). Ordinary households would have little or nothing to worry about.

This was total fantasy. No such frenzied boom took place.

In the second diagram, two years later, the OBR is forced to acknowledge this. Corporations are just raking in the profits and sitting on them. The household sector, on the other hand, is a rolling catastrophe. Austerity has meant falling wages, less government spending on social services (or anything else), and higher de facto taxes. This puts the squeeze on household budgets and people are forced to borrow. As a result, not only are households in overall deficit for the second time in British history, the situation is actually worse than it was in the years leading up to 2008.

And remember: it was a mortgage crisis that set off the 2008 crash, which almost destroyed the world economy and plunged millions into penury. Not a crisis in public debt. A crisis in private debt.

An inquiry

In 2015, around the time the original OBR predictions came out, I wrote an essay in the Guardian predicting that austerity and budget-balancing would create a disastrous crisis in private debt. Now it's so clearly, unmistakably, happening that even the OBR cannot deny it.

I believe the time has come for there be a public investigation - a formal public inquiry, in fact - into how this could be allowed to happen. After the 2008 crash, at least the economists in Treasury and the Bank of England could plausibly claim they hadn't completely understood the relation between private debt and financial instability. Now they simply have no excuse.

What on earth is an institution called the “Office for Budget Responsibility” credulously imagining corporate borrowing binges in order to suggest the government will balance the budget to no ill effects? How responsible is that? Even the second chart is extremely odd. Up to 2017, the top and bottom of the diagram are exact mirrors of one another, as they ought to be. However, in the projected future after 2017, the section below the line is much smaller than the section above, apparently seriously understating the amount both of future government, and future private, debt. In other words, the numbers don't add up.

The OBR told the New Statesman ​that it was not aware of any errors in its 2015 forecast for corporate sector net lending, and that the forecast was based on the available data. It said the forecast for business investment has been revised down because of the uncertainty created by Brexit. 

Still, if the “Office of Budget Responsibility” was true to its name, it should be sounding off the alarm bells right about now. So far all we've got is one mention of private debt and a mild warning about the rise of personal debt from the Bank of England, which did not however connect the problem to austerity, and one fairly strong statement from a maverick columnist in the Daily Mail. Otherwise, silence. 

The only plausible explanation is that institutions like the Treasury, OBR, and to a degree as well the Bank of England can't, by definition, warn against the dangers of austerity, however alarming the situation, because they have been set up the way they have in order to justify austerity. It's important to emphasise that most professional economists have never supported Conservative policies in this regard. The policy was adopted because it was convenient to politicians; institutions were set up in order to support it; economists were hired in order to come up with arguments for austerity, rather than to judge whether it would be a good idea. At present, this situation has led us to the brink of disaster.

The last time there was a financial crash, the Queen famously asked: why was no one able to foresee this? We now have the tools. Perhaps the most important task for a public inquiry will be to finally ask: what is the real purpose of the institutions that are supposed to foresee such matters, to what degree have they been politicised, and what would it take to turn them back into institutions that can at least inform us if we're staring into the lights of an oncoming train?