Fraser Nelson’s voodoo economics

The claim that the cuts are neither "deep" nor "harsh" does not bear scrutiny.

Spectator editor, Fraser Nelson, set sail for his summer holiday in Sweden yesterday with an extraordinary piece for his Coffee House blog. His article claims to show that the coalition's cuts are neither "deep" nor "harsh" and that they are nearly identical to those proposed by Alistair Darling. It could not be further from the truth.

Nelson's key conceit is to base all his figures on Total Managed Expenditure (TME), which include automatic stabilisers such as unemployment benefits and debt interest. In the long run, everyone should want these to come down but there is no easy way to do this in the short run while unemployment hovers around 7.7 per cent and debt is increasing.

A far better measure of the pace and scale of the cuts is to look at Departmental Expenditure Limits where the bulk of the cuts are taking place. This is the government's discretionary spending and includes a real terms squeeze for the education budget and crippling cuts for many departments such as the 25 per cent facing the Home Office or 27 per cent for local government spending. As we all know, this has resulted in cuts to Education Maintenance Allowances, police numbers, affordable housing and many other local services.

The Treasury's own figures show that the government is planning £95 billion of spending cuts between now and 2015-16. This pain has only just started with £22 billion planned in 2011-12 and much more to come in future years. The impact of these cuts is profound. The Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development have said that the cuts will result in 1.6 million lost jobs across the economy. While it is true that Alistair Darling's cuts would have caused plenty of their own pain Labour was proposing a more modest £51 billion by 2014-15. In other words, for every £8 of coalition cuts, Labour would have cut £5.

Nelson goes on to claim that Osborne's cuts are less severe than those of Denis Healey in the 1970s. Again, he does this using TME figures rather than looking at DELs. Thankfully, the independent Institute for Fiscal Studies made precisely this distinction in their post-Budget analysis. The graph below shows what public spending looks like when those non-discretionary items are taken out.

A

The IFS analysis shows in their own words the "longest, and deepest sustained, period of cuts to public service spending since (at least) WW2"". It is also worth noting that under Denis Healey in 1977-78, inflation was rampant and volatile meaning that the public spending settlement (which was set in cash terms) could result in either a real terms cut or rise depending on the level of inflation that year.

In a later point, Nelson seeks to show that Britain's fiscal consolidation is small by comparison to a range of international comparisons. His examples simply don't stack up since they are either from mid-1990s when small open economies like Sweden, Finland and Ireland were able to offset their spending cuts with export-led growth due to global buoyant demand. Or they are countries from the box marked "basket case". Does even Nelson really want us to emulate Ireland or Greece in cutting until the pips squeak, the eyes bulge, and the country stands on the brink of economic collapse?

Nelson goes on to claim that inflation is the "real villain". Again, there is a contrast with the 1970s. At that time, there was a wage-price spiral meaning that - although bad for the macroeconomy and something we should be avoided at all costs - living standards were keeping pace with inflation. This time around, as Nelson's own graph shows, the squeeze on living standards is due primarily to stagnant wages. Indeed, the squeeze long precedes 2010 and - according to research released by the Resolution Foundation this week - goes back as far as 2003.

Core inflation - stripping out the impact of food and energy prices - actually dropped from 3.3 per cent to 2.8 per cent last month. And economists such as Gavyn Davies as well as politicians like Vince Cable are starting to call for additional quantitative easing. Nelson doesn't call explicitly for an interest rate hike to halt inflation but it would be madness if he did so. As Adam Posen of the Bank of England has said:

"The recent consumer price inflation rates above 4 per cent result from this year's value added tax increase and the recent energy price shock. Removing those factors, UK inflation has averaged 1.5 per cent over the past year - including any remaining effects of sterling's past decline. Of course, higher taxes and energy prices shrink British real incomes, but the monetary policy committee was right not to respond to them, and should not do so now."

As an adherent of "voodoo economics", Nelson, in his sixth point, seeks to lay blame for our economic woes on the 50p rate of tax, which affects only those earning over £12,500 per month. The experience of his favourite holiday destination, Sweden, alongside Denmark - where the tax take has risen since the 1960s with no impact on growth - shows that there is little evidence for this theory as Lane Kenworthy has shown in an exhaustive blog on the topic.

Today's growth figures are a wake up call and show that growth has been anaemic since September. Indeed, 2011 growth is likely to come in at less than half the level originally predicted by the Office of Budget Responsibility in June 2010. Fraser Nelson and his friend's remedy of tax cuts, more spending cuts, and interest rate hikes are a recipe from the discredited text books of the 1980s. Only a sensible approach which makes proper use of the available data can lead us out of this mess.

Will Straw is Associate Director at IPPR

Will Straw was Director of Britain Stronger In Europe, the cross-party campaign to keep Britain in the European Union. 

Show Hide image

The Autumn Statement proved it – we need a real alternative to austerity, now

Theresa May’s Tories have missed their chance to rescue the British economy.

After six wasted years of failed Conservative austerity measures, Philip Hammond had the opportunity last month in the Autumn Statement to change course and put in place the economic policies that would deliver greater prosperity, and make sure it was fairly shared.

Instead, he chose to continue with cuts to public services and in-work benefits while failing to deliver the scale of investment needed to secure future prosperity. The sense of betrayal is palpable.

The headline figures are grim. An analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that real wages will not recover their 2008 levels even after 2020. The Tories are overseeing a lost decade in earnings that is, in the words Paul Johnson, the director of the IFS, “dreadful” and unprecedented in modern British history.

Meanwhile, the Treasury’s own analysis shows the cuts falling hardest on the poorest 30 per cent of the population. The Office for Budget Responsibility has reported that it expects a £122bn worsening in the public finances over the next five years. Of this, less than half – £59bn – is due to the Tories’ shambolic handling of Brexit. Most of the rest is thanks to their mishandling of the domestic economy.

 

Time to invest

The Tories may think that those people who are “just about managing” are an electoral demographic, but for Labour they are our friends, neighbours and the people we represent. People in all walks of life needed something better from this government, but the Autumn Statement was a betrayal of the hopes that they tried to raise beforehand.

Because the Tories cut when they should have invested, we now have a fundamentally weak economy that is unprepared for the challenges of Brexit. Low investment has meant that instead of installing new machinery, or building the new infrastructure that would support productive high-wage jobs, we have an economy that is more and more dependent on low-productivity, low-paid work. Every hour worked in the US, Germany or France produces on average a third more than an hour of work here.

Labour has different priorities. We will deliver the necessary investment in infrastructure and research funding, and back it up with an industrial strategy that can sustain well-paid, secure jobs in the industries of the future such as renewables. We will fight for Britain’s continued tariff-free access to the single market. We will reverse the tax giveaways to the mega-rich and the giant companies, instead using the money to make sure the NHS and our education system are properly funded. In 2020 we will introduce a real living wage, expected to be £10 an hour, to make sure every job pays a wage you can actually live on. And we will rebuild and transform our economy so no one and no community is left behind.

 

May’s missing alternative

This week, the Bank of England governor, Mark Carney, gave an important speech in which he hit the proverbial nail on the head. He was completely right to point out that societies need to redistribute the gains from trade and technology, and to educate and empower their citizens. We are going through a lost decade of earnings growth, as Carney highlights, and the crisis of productivity will not be solved without major government investment, backed up by an industrial strategy that can deliver growth.

Labour in government is committed to tackling the challenges of rising inequality, low wage growth, and driving up Britain’s productivity growth. But it is becoming clearer each day since Theresa May became Prime Minister that she, like her predecessor, has no credible solutions to the challenges our economy faces.

 

Crisis in Italy

The Italian people have decisively rejected the changes to their constitution proposed by Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, with nearly 60 per cent voting No. The Italian economy has not grown for close to two decades. A succession of governments has attempted to introduce free-market policies, including slashing pensions and undermining rights at work, but these have had little impact.

Renzi wanted extra powers to push through more free-market reforms, but he has now resigned after encountering opposition from across the Italian political spectrum. The absence of growth has left Italian banks with €360bn of loans that are not being repaid. Usually, these debts would be written off, but Italian banks lack the reserves to be able to absorb the losses. They need outside assistance to survive.

 

Bail in or bail out

The oldest bank in the world, Monte dei Paschi di Siena, needs €5bn before the end of the year if it is to avoid collapse. Renzi had arranged a financing deal but this is now under threat. Under new EU rules, governments are not allowed to bail out banks, like in the 2008 crisis. This is intended to protect taxpayers. Instead, bank investors are supposed to take a loss through a “bail-in”.

Unusually, however, Italian bank investors are not only big financial institutions such as insurance companies, but ordinary households. One-third of all Italian bank bonds are held by households, so a bail-in would hit them hard. And should Italy’s banks fail, the danger is that investors will pull money out of banks across Europe, causing further failures. British banks have been reducing their investments in Italy, but concerned UK regulators have asked recently for details of their exposure.

John McDonnell is the shadow chancellor


John McDonnell is Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington and has been shadow chancellor since September 2015. 

This article first appeared in the 08 December 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Brexit to Trump