The UK isn't a "safe haven", it's just stagnant

Lower borrowing costs are a reflection of economic weakness, not strength.

"The difficult decisions on the deficit have made the UK a safe haven in the recent economic storm," boasted George Osborne in his response to last week's anaemic GDP figures. Today, the Chancellor and his advisers are pointing to the fact that the cost of borrowing yesterday fell to its lowest level for over 50 years as proof of that claim. A spokesman for Osborne said:

"It's a vote of confidence, one of the key aspects of our plan has been a tight fiscal policy combined with a loose monetary policy, it's the right mix for economic growth, and the need to rebalance towards exports and away from consumption."

The yield on 10-year UK gilts has fallen to 2.76, which means far lower interest repayments on government debt, potentially saving the taxpayer billions of pounds. But is this really an unequivocally good news story, as Osborne suggests? After all, it's likely that the fall in rates has much much more to do with the fact that the Bank of England base rate is unlikely to rise until 2012, than it has with the supposed "strength" of the British economy.

Here's Paul Krugman's take:

Yields in the US have, of course, plunged rather than risen. And they've plunged for the same reason UK yields have plunged: a scarily weak economy suggests that it will be years before the central bank raises rates.

In a wonderful pay-off, he adds:

It's sad, actually: the wolf is at the door, and Osborne thinks it's the confidence fairy.

Over on his blog, Faisal Islam, Channel 4's excellent economics editor, makes the same point and highlights an important experiment by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research. The NIESR points out that one would expect a fall in rates, if the result of increased economic confidence, to correlate with a rise in the FTSE-100. But after crunching the numbers, the body found no such relationship. NIESR director Jonathan Portes concluded: "Low long-term interest rates appear to reflect economic weakness and lack of market confidence in the prospects of the UK economy, not the reverse."

Over to you, Mr Osborne.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: Trump and an age of disorder

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions.

The US presidency has not always been held by men of distinction and honour, but Donald Trump is by some distance its least qualified occupant. The leader of the world’s sole superpower has no record of political or military service and is ignorant of foreign affairs. Throughout his campaign, he repeatedly showed himself to be a racist, a misogynist, a braggart and a narcissist.

The naive hope that Mr Trump’s victory would herald a great moderation was dispelled by his conduct during the transition. He compared his country’s intelligence services to those of Nazi Germany and repeatedly denied Russian interference in the election. He derided Nato as “obsolete” and predicted the demise of the European Union. He reaffirmed his commitment to dismantling Obamacare and to overturning Roe v Wade. He doled out jobs to white nationalists, protectionists and family members. He denounced US citizens for demonstrating against him. Asked whether he regretted any part of his vulgar campaign, he replied: “No, I won.”

Of all his predilections, Mr Trump’s affection for Vladimir Putin is perhaps the most troubling. When the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, warned that Russia was the “number one geopolitical foe” of the US, he was mocked by Barack Obama. Yet his remark proved prescient. Rather than regarding Mr Putin as a foe, however, Mr Trump fetes him as a friend. The Russian president aims to use the US president’s goodwill to secure the removal of American sanctions, recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and respect for the murderous reign of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. He has a worryingly high chance of success.

Whether or not Mr Trump has personal motives for his fealty (as a lurid security dossier alleges), he and Mr Putin share a political outlook. Both men desire a world in which “strongmen” are free to abuse their citizens’ human rights without fear of external rebuke. Mr Trump’s refusal to commit to Nato’s principle of collective defence provides Mr Putin with every incentive to pursue his expansionist desires. The historic achievement of peace and stability in eastern Europe is in danger.

As he seeks reconciliation with Russia, Mr Trump is simultaneously pursuing conflict with China. He broke with precedent by speaking on the telephone with the Taiwanese president, Tsai Ing-wen, and used Twitter to berate the Chinese government. Rex Tillerson, Mr Trump’s secretary of state nominee, has threatened an American blockade of the South China Sea islands.

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions. The US constitution, with its separation of powers, was designed to restrain autocrats such as the new president. Yet, in addition to the White House, the Republicans also control Congress and two-thirds of governorships and state houses. Mr Trump’s first Supreme Court appointment will ensure a conservative judicial majority. The decline of established print titles and the growth of “fake news” weaken another source of accountability.

In these circumstances, there is a heightened responsibility on the US’s allies to challenge, rather than to indulge, Mr Trump. Angela Merkel’s warning that co-operation was conditional on his respect for liberal and democratic values was a model of the former. Michael Gove’s obsequious interview with Mr Trump was a dismal example of the latter.

Theresa May has rightly rebuked the president for his treatment of women and has toughened Britain’s stance against Russian revanchism. Yet, although the UK must maintain working relations with the US, she should not allow the prospect of a future trade deal to skew her attitude towards Mr Trump. Any agreement is years away and the president’s protectionist proclivities could yet thwart British hopes of a beneficial outcome.

The diplomatic and political conventions embodied by the “special relationship” have endured for more than seven decades. However, Mr Trump’s election may necessitate their demise. It was the belief that the UK must stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the US that led Tony Blair into the ruinous Iraq War. In this new age of disorder, Western leaders must avoid being willing accomplices to Mr Trump’s agenda. Intense scepticism, rather than sycophancy, should define their response.

This article first appeared in the 19 January 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Trump era