"Lame Duck" MPC stands pat and waits for the new Governor

The calm before Carney's storm?

Last week saw the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, (MPC), leave base rates unchanged at 0.5 per cent and its Quantitative Easing, (QE), programme left unchanged at £375bn.

This was hardly surprising, given the recent stabilization in UK economic data; better industrial and manufacturing production figures, improved business confidence surveys, higher house prices and new car sales, and no "triple-dip" recession. Add to this the imminent arrival of new Governor Mark Carney - his first meeting will be on 4th July - and there was little prospect of any other outcome.

However, this may well be the calm before the storm as Carney has a reputation for innovation and is truly "new blood" - unusual in that he didn’t rise through the ranks of the Bank.  As head of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Carney became the first major central bank chief to adopt "timeline guidance" when, in 2009, he promised to keep Canada’s benchmark interest rate at 0.25 per cent for a year unless inflation became a problem. The US Federal Reserve subsequently copied this tactic and there is every chance that he will introduce such guidance into the Old Lady’s pronouncements.

I’d expect this change to be announced in August, or September at the latest, and I’d say the chances for further easing measures sit in the balance; depending on economic data developments over the next few weeks.

The Chancellor recently changed the Bank’s mandate so that it can now give more weight to promotion of growth and employment, rather than inflation control, and one would expect Mr Carney to pursue the goal enthusiastically, as presumably he discussed the move with Mr Osborne before accepting his appointment.

If I had to make a call, however, I’d say we will see extension of and improvements to the Funding for Lending Scheme, (FLS), but no further rate cuts or increased QE, as I feel we have finally turned the corner-but it’s certainly a long sweeping bend, rather than a hairpin. Cheap money is finally doing its bit, the Eurozone crisis is contained, and the US recovery is looking increasingly robust. Last Friday’s employment report was very encouraging and US jobless claims for the week ending May 4th continued the good news, coming out at 323,000, the lowest reading since 18th Jan. 2008.

In a further testament to the growing strength of the American recovery, the daily Rasmussen Consumer Index, which measures consumer confidence on a daily basis, rose to 106.2 on May 5th, the highest level since 2007.  The US economic locomotive is finally gathering speed.    

Bank of England. Photograph: Getty Images

Chairman of  Saxo Capital Markets Board

An Honours Graduate from Oxford University, Nick Beecroft has over 30 years of international trading experience within the financial industry, including senior Global Markets roles at Standard Chartered Bank, Deutsche Bank and Citibank. Nick was a member of the Bank of England's Foreign Exchange Joint Standing Committee.

More of his work can be found here.

Getty
Show Hide image

Trident is dangerous – and not for the reasons you think

Fixating on Trident is like replacing the guest bathroom while your own toilet flush doesn't work. 

Backing Trident is supposed to make a politician look hard, realistic and committed to Britain’s long history of military defence.That’s why the Tories delighted in holding a debate on renewing the nuclear weapons system in June 2016.

But it was the Tory Prime Minister who floundered this weekend, after it emerged that three weeks before that debate, an unarmed Trident missile misfired - and veered off towards the United States instead of Africa. Downing Street confirmed May knew about the error before the parliamentary debate. 

Trident critics have mobilised. Scotland’s First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, called the revelation “serious”. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, a longstanding opponent of nuclear weapons, said the error was “pretty catastrophic”. 

The idea of a rogue nuclear missile heading for the White House may have fuelled the disarmament movement. But even if you enjoy the game of nuclear poker, fixating on Trident is dangerous. Because while MPs rehearse the same old Cold War arguments, the rest of the world has moved on. 

Every hour debating Trident is an hour not spent debating cyber warfare. As Peter Pomerantsev prophetically wrote in April 2015, Russian military theory has in recent years assumed that it would not be possible to match the West militarily, but wars can be won in the “psychosphere”, through misinformation.

Since the Russian cyber attacks during the US election, few can doubt this strategy is paying off - and that our defence systems have a long way to catch up. As shadow Defence secretary, Emily Thornberry described this as “the crucial test” of the 21st century. The government has pledged £1.9bn in cyber security defences over the next five years, but will that be enough? Nerds in a back room are not as thrilling as nuclear submarines, but how they are deployed matters too.

Secondly, there is the cost. Even if you back the idea of a nuclear deterrent, renewing Trident is a bit like replacing the guest bathroom when the regular loo is hardly flushing. A 2015 Centreforum paper described it as “gold-plated” - if your idea of gold-plated is the ability to blow up “a minimum of eight cities”. There is a gory but necessary debate to be had about alternatives which could free up more money to be spent on conventional forces. 

Finally, a nuclear deterrent is only credible if you intend to use it. For this reason, the British government needs to focus on protecting the infrastructure of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, now under threat from a US President who declared it “obsolete”. Eastern Europe has been nervous about the bear on its borders for some time - the number of Poles joining the country’s 120 paramilitary organisations has tripled in two years.  

Simply attacking Trident on safety grounds will only get you so far - after all, the argument behind renewing Trident is that the status quo will not do. Furthermore, for all the furore over a misfired Trident missile, it’s hard to imagine that should the hour come, the biggest worry for the crew of a nuclear submarine will be the small chance of a missile going in the wrong direction. That would be missing the rather higher chance of global nuclear apocalypse.

Anti-Trident MPs will make the most of May's current embarrassment. But if they can build bridges with the more hawkish members of the opposition, and criticise the government's defence policy on its own terms, they will find plenty more ammunition. 

Julia Rampen is the editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog. She was previously deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.