Draghi, annotated

What the ECB president was <em>really</em> thinking.

We don't normally do straight-up linkblogs, but sometime-NS-contributor Paweł Morski's "annotated highlights" from the ECB press conference yesterday are a must-read. Here's a taster:

As regards fiscal policies, euro area countries should build on their efforts to reduce government budget deficits and continue to implement structural reforms, thereby mutually reinforcing fiscal sustainability and economic growth. Fiscal policy strategies need to be complemented by growth-enhancing structural reforms. […] To support employment, wage-setting should become more flexible and better aligned with productivity.

The floggings will continue until morale improves. Our only idea for growth is to give all the German MEPs little “Ask Me About the Hartz IV Labour Reform” badges and hope the word spreads.

So this could also go ahead speedily. I am sure that the European Commission has done a splendid job on both accounts.

You want to know how cool I am? I can say this stuff with a straight face.

Informative and entertaining. It's like an economics version of Where on Earth is Carmen Sandiago?

Anyway, the key takeaway – if you aren't clicking through – is that Mario Draghi has a habit of dropping bombshells where they really shouldn't be. Draghi suggested that the European Commission should draw an explicit distinction between uninsured depositors and bondholders in favour of the depositors – à la America's FDIC – despite the fact that the funding of European banks is far more reliant on bondholders than American banks are. The advantage of such a move would be that it would lessen the risk of a bank run, Cypriot-style; but if it scares off bondholders instead, it could be disastrous.

An important point – buried in the answer to a question at a press release. It's hardly "whatever it takes", Draghi's famous intervention which may have saved the Eurozone for a bit.

Mario Draghi. Photograph: Getty Images

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Voters are turning against Brexit but the Lib Dems aren't benefiting

Labour's pro-Brexit stance is not preventing it from winning the support of Remainers. Will that change?

More than a year after the UK voted for Brexit, there has been little sign of buyer's remorse. The public, including around a third of Remainers, are largely of the view that the government should "get on with it".

But as real wages are squeezed (owing to the Brexit-linked inflationary spike) there are tentative signs that the mood is changing. In the event of a second referendum, an Opinium/Observer poll found, 47 per cent would vote Remain, compared to 44 per cent for Leave. Support for a repeat vote is also increasing. Forty one per cent of the public now favour a second referendum (with 48 per cent opposed), compared to 33 per cent last December. 

The Liberal Democrats have made halting Brexit their raison d'être. But as public opinion turns, there is no sign they are benefiting. Since the election, Vince Cable's party has yet to exceed single figures in the polls, scoring a lowly 6 per cent in the Opinium survey (down from 7.4 per cent at the election). 

What accounts for this disparity? After their near-extinction in 2015, the Lib Dems remain either toxic or irrelevant to many voters. Labour, by contrast, despite its pro-Brexit stance, has hoovered up Remainers (55 per cent back Jeremy Corbyn's party). 

In some cases, this reflects voters' other priorities. Remainers are prepared to support Labour on account of the party's stances on austerity, housing and education. Corbyn, meanwhile, is a eurosceptic whose internationalism and pro-migration reputation endear him to EU supporters. Other Remainers rewarded Labour MPs who voted against Article 50, rebelling against the leadership's stance. 

But the trend also partly reflects ignorance. By saying little on the subject of Brexit, Corbyn and Labour allowed Remainers to assume the best. Though there is little evidence that voters will abandon Corbyn over his EU stance, the potential exists.

For this reason, the proposal of a new party will continue to recur. By challenging Labour over Brexit, without the toxicity of Lib Dems, it would sharpen the choice before voters. Though it would not win an election, a new party could force Corbyn to soften his stance on Brexit or to offer a second referendum (mirroring Ukip's effect on the Conservatives).

The greatest problem for the project is that it lacks support where it counts: among MPs. For reasons of tribalism and strategy, there is no emergent "Gang of Four" ready to helm a new party. In the absence of a new convulsion, the UK may turn against Brexit without the anti-Brexiteers benefiting. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.