My fantasy chancellor would announce a new path for fiscal policy

Autumn Statement wishlist.

Thinking ahead to the Autumn Statement, you can imagine a Balls/Cable alternative reality where the chancellor is a social democrat and Keynesian. Or you can consider what gentle nudging of the tiller the present incumbent might plausibly countenance.

The first option is a lot less gloomy.  With the economy and the public finances now totally at sea, my fantasy chancellor will announce a new path for fiscal policy. There would be a short-term stimulus, starting with a cut to employers’ national insurance and a massive public investment programme. Capital spending which guarantees a future revenue stream, such as house-building, would be ignored when it comes to plans for the national debt, meaning the government could promise a million new homes over five years.

There would still need to be very painful fiscal consolidation over the medium-term, but not on George Osborne’s terms. His plans assume that almost all the burden should be borne by spending cuts not tax rises, and his fiscal rules force him to squeeze the deficit faster and deeper than is likely to be needed for long-term sustainability. The result is a plan to permanently shrink the size of the state as a share of GDP.

A centre-left government would declare that its aim was to return public spending to its long-term trend not to ‘overshoot’. That would mean taking a bit longer to cut the deficit and raising more taxes, especially from wealth and land. There would still be very difficult and controversial decisions because even a decade of flat spending would mean many individual cuts. A Fabian Society commission has just launched to consider how the tricky trade-offs could be made.

But what of the real Mr Osborne? His reputation depends on him rejecting almost everything I have said. He knows however the Liberal Democrats will demand he finds more ways to tax high-earners, even if it is simply by adding a few bands to the council tax. He could also accelerate the capitalisation of his two putative public investment banks. On specific spending cuts, he should desist from a fresh assault on his ‘undeserving’ shirkers, for although the focus groups tell him it’s good politics, over time he reinforces the ‘nasty party’ image the Tories must shed to win centre-ground votes. Perhaps, on cuts, Osborne should simply pause and take stock; after all, does he really need to set a budget for April 2015 this week?

Andrew Harrop is the General Secretary of Fabian Society

The government could promise a million new homes over five years. Photograph: Getty Images

Andrew Harrop is general secretary of the Fabian Society.

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