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

Why relations between Theresa May and Philip Hammond became tense so quickly

The political imperative of controlling immigration is clashing with the economic imperative of maintaining growth. 

There is no relationship in government more important than that between the prime minister and the chancellor. When Theresa May entered No.10, she chose Philip Hammond, a dependable technocrat and long-standing ally who she had known since Oxford University. 

But relations between the pair have proved far tenser than anticipated. On Wednesday, Hammond suggested that students could be excluded from the net migration target. "We are having conversations within government about the most appropriate way to record and address net migration," he told the Treasury select committee. The Chancellor, in common with many others, has long regarded the inclusion of students as an obstacle to growth. 

The following day Hammond was publicly rebuked by No.10. "Our position on who is included in the figures has not changed, and we are categorically not reviewing whether or not students are included," a spokesman said (as I reported in advance, May believes that the public would see this move as "a fix"). 

This is not the only clash in May's first 100 days. Hammond was aggrieved by the Prime Minister's criticisms of loose monetary policy (which forced No.10 to state that it "respects the independence of the Bank of England") and is resisting tougher controls on foreign takeovers. The Chancellor has also struck a more sceptical tone on the UK's economic prospects. "It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on June 23 to become poorer," he declared in his conference speech, a signal that national prosperity must come before control of immigration. 

May and Hammond's relationship was never going to match the remarkable bond between David Cameron and George Osborne. But should relations worsen it risks becoming closer to that beween Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling. Like Hammond, Darling entered the Treasury as a calm technocrat and an ally of the PM. But the extraordinary circumstances of the financial crisis transformed him into a far more assertive figure.

In times of turmoil, there is an inevitable clash between political and economic priorities. As prime minister, Brown resisted talk of cuts for fear of the electoral consequences. But as chancellor, Darling was more concerned with the bottom line (backing a rise in VAT). By analogy, May is focused on the political imperative of controlling immigration, while Hammond is focused on the economic imperative of maintaining growth. If their relationship is to endure far tougher times they will soon need to find a middle way. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.