The recovery is coming: can we relax yet?

Blue skies are coming.

All this month on economia we’ve been taking stock of where we are five years on from the momentous events that followed the collapse of Lehman Brothers. So much significance has been placed on the events of September 2008, that some commentators are happy now to refer to events purely in terms of them being “post-Lehman”, as if the failure of one institution marked some kind of year zero when the financial world changed forever

While the meltdown in global credit markets certainly followed the collapse of Lehman Brothers, there is plenty of dissention as to whether it was the  trigger for recession it has been portrayed as. Andrew Smithers in his latest book The Road to Recovery (reviewed in the October issue of economia) draws on a wide range of sources to argue strongly against what he calls “the myth of Lehmans”. His argument is that the global economy was in plenty of trouble (and recession had already kicked in) by September 2008. Others still don’t dispute that the collapse of Lehmans was significant but point out that it was significant insofar as the reaction to it from governments around the word led directly to a worsening of the depth of recession.

The argument here is that the painful experience since 2008 was caused by authorities and governments not allowing enough banks to collapse. While the shock would have been much worse in the short term, the recovery would have been sharper and would have taken hold sooner. The banking sector would have emerged with stronger and healthier banks (even if there were fewer of them), and would have been in a better place to help business recover.

National governments might also have been better placed to rebuild economies had they not been propping up failed banks.

But to some extent this is the old story. Five years on from these calamitous events, we are beginning to see the early signs of recovery. There have been various indicators and research reports produced to show that a lasting recovery is taking hold. The biggest question marks now remain over the fragile state of the eurozone and the likely fallout of any further problems in one or more of the troubled member economies, and the trickier issue of whether this recovery (however welcome) is the right sort of recovery.

The chancellor, George Osborne, set his stall out on delivering an export-led recovery that would help rebalance the economy and bring a longer-lasting, sustainable recovery. That the current return to health appears to be built on a new housing bubble and domestic debt remains a concern. It’s the economic equivalent of treating heroin addicts with methadone. It is far better for them (and far better for society) than heroin, and is more controlled, but it can hardly count as a full recovery from dependency. There is a place for this treatment, but let’s not pretend (as a triumphalist chancellor is likely to try and do at his party conference next week) that he has the economy back to anything like a sustainable position.

However, when that real recovery does arrive it will be fuelled by the sort of high-growth businesses that are the drivers of any economy. And on this front there are some interesting insights from a new piece of research from private equity firm ECI Partners. The top line from the report, which is based on a detailed questioning of almost 700 leaders in high-growth firms, is that they are far more confident this year than they have been for the past few years. The vast majority claim to be planning to fund expansion and growth of over 10% in the coming year and most are very confident that they will be easily able to access finance should they need to (this has been a consistent challenge to growth in recent surveys).

While there is a more upbeat tone to the responses from those based in London, and those working in the technology sector, the vast bulk of respondents regardless of sector or location feel that things are moving in the right direction.

Even if the storm clouds had been building since 2007, the storm of recession broke in 2008. Five years on we are beginning to see the first signs of blue skies above. While it is incumbent on everyone to take a hard look at the events of five years ago and make sure we learn the appropriate lessons in areas from audit to corporate governance, from our banking culture to financial regulation, for the time being it is also important to enjoy some good news for once.

This story first appeared on economia.


Photograph: Getty Images

Richard Cree is the Editor of Economia.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

How the shadow cabinet forced Jeremy Corbyn not to change Labour policy on Syria air strikes

Frontbenchers made it clear that they "would not leave the room" until the leader backed down. 

Jeremy Corbyn had been forced to back down once before the start of today's shadow cabinet meeting on Syria, offering Labour MPs a free vote on air strikes against Isis. By the end of the two-hour gathering, he had backed down twice.

At the start of the meeting, Corbyn's office briefed the Guardian that while a free would be held, party policy would be changed to oppose military action - an attempt to claim partial victory. But shadow cabinet members, led by Andy Burnham, argued that this was "unacceptable" and an attempt to divide MPs from members. Burnham, who is not persuaded by the case for air strikes, warned that colleagues who voted against the party's proposed position would become targets for abuse, undermining the principle of a free vote.

Jon Ashworth, the shadow minister without portfolio and NEC member, said that Labour's policy remained the motion passed by this year's conference, which was open to competing interpretations (though most believe the tests it set for military action have been met). Party policy could not be changed without going through a similarly formal process, he argued. In advance of the meeting, Labour released a poll of members (based on an "initial sample" of 1,900) showing that 75 per cent opposed intervention. 

When Corbyn's team suggested that the issue be resolved after the meeting, those present made it clear that they "would not leave the room" until the Labour leader had backed down. By the end, only Corbyn allies Diane Abbott and Jon Trickett argued that party policy should be changed to oppose military action. John McDonnell, who has long argued for a free vote, took a more "conciliatory" approach, I'm told. It was when Hilary Benn said that he would be prepared to speak from the backbenches in the Syria debate, in order to avoid opposing party policy, that Corbyn realised he would have to give way. The Labour leader and the shadow foreign secretary will now advocate opposing positions from the frontbench when MPs meet, with Corbyn opening and Benn closing. 

The meeting had begun with members, including some who reject military action, complaining about the "discorteous" and "deplorable" manner in which the issue had been handled. As I reported last week, there was outrage when Corbyn wrote to MPs opposing air strikes without first informing the shadow cabinet (I'm told that my account of that meeting was also raised). There was anger today when, at 2:07pm, seven minutes after the meeting began, some members received an update on their phones from the Guardian revealing that a free vote would be held but that party policy would be changed to oppose military action. This "farcical moment", in the words of one present (Corbyn is said to have been unaware of the briefing), only hardened shadow cabinet members' resolve to force their leader to back down - and he did. 

In a statement released following the meeting, a Corbyn spokesperson confirmed that a free vote would be held but made no reference to party policy: 

"Today's Shadow Cabinet agreed to back Jeremy Corbyn's recommendation of a free vote on the Government's proposal to authorise UK bombing in Syria.   

"The Shadow Cabinet decided to support the call for David Cameron to step back from the rush to war and hold a full two day debate in the House of Commons on such a crucial national decision.  

"Shadow Cabinet members agreed to call David Cameron to account on the unanswered questions raised by his case for bombing: including how it would accelerate a negotiated settlement of the Syrian civil war; what ground troops would take territory evacuated by ISIS; military co-ordination and strategy; the refugee crisis and the imperative to cut-off of supplies to ISIS."

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.