The Fed was just trying to keep a low profile

Last Wednesday’s FOMC statement was a classic of the genre, but it won't stop the New Year’s renewed debate over government funding and the debt ceiling from hovering into view.

If nothing else, I think we’d all agree that drafting the post-FOMC statement must surely be a huge lexicographical challenge, with tens of thousands of teenage scribblers, traders, investors and politicians crawling over every word to try and discover significance where, in many cases, none may exist. In this sense, last Wednesday’s statement was a little classic of the genre.

Some were surprised to see the pace of expansion of economic activity still described as "moderate" rather than "modest". True, the housing sector had now "slowed somewhat", whereas last time it had "been strengthening", there was even debate over whether the inclusion of the word "some" in the FOMC’s assessment of the labour market as having "shown some further improvement" was a downgrade.

The truth is, this was just a holding statement, and we should watch their lips - any change in policy will be data dependent. They dropped the previous comment which suggested that tighter financial conditions could damage the recovery-hardly surprising since 10-year yields had virtually doubled from the Spring's low of 1.6 per cent to 3.0 per cent just before the September meeting, but they have since dropped to 2.5 per cent and the stock market has resumed its climb.

It’s also possible that the FOMC was keen to sound tough in advance of the Senate confirmation hearings on Janet Yellen’s candidacy as Fed Chairman. Not all FOMC members may like her dovish stance, but she’s one of theirs, and they certainly don’t want to encourage the sort of uncomfortable scrutiny of the Fed advocated by Senator Rand Paul and his father. Hence their assiduous and conspicuous failure to suggest tapering would be further delayed.

The week of 4th November will be key, recent data having been somewhat contradictory, with weak consumer confidence, but a rather robust Manufacturing ISM Survey; the former may portend a weak non-Manufacturing ISM report - much the larger part of the economy, and then of course, the most important data of the week, October's employment report, due on the 8th. We may see some asymmetry in market reaction here again, with a strong report being dismissed as distorted by the shutdown, whereas weak data would support a further delay in tapering.

It is also certainly the case that by the time of the next FOMC meeting in December the Fed will have little, if any, further clarity on the economy’s health and the New Year’s renewed debate over government funding and the debt ceiling will be hovering into view.

Traders react to the Federal Open Market Committee report, 18 September 2013. 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.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

I'll vote against bombing Isis - but my conscience is far from clear

Chi Onwurah lays out why she'll be voting against British airstrikes in Syria.

I have spent much of the weekend considering how I will vote on the question of whether the UK should extend airstrikes against Daesh/Isis from Iraq to Syria, seeking out and weighing the evidence and the risks.

My constituents have written, emailed, tweeted, facebooked or stopped me in the street to share their thoughts. Most recognised what a difficult and complex decision it is. When I was selected to be the Labour candidate for Newcastle Central I was asked what I thought would be the hardest part of being an MP.

I said it would be this.

I am not a pacifist, I believe our country is worth defending and our values worth fighting for. But the decision to send British Armed Forces into action is, rightly, a heavy responsibility.

For me it comes down to two key questions. The security of British citizens, and the avoidance of civilian casualties. These are separate operational and moral questions but they are linked in that it is civilian casualties which help fuel the Daesh ideology that we cannot respect and value the lives of those who do not believe as we do. There is also the important question of solidarity with the French in the wake of their grievous and devastating loss; I shall come to that later.

I listened very carefully to the Prime Minister as he set out the case for airstrikes on Thursday and I share his view that Daesh represents a real threat to UK citizens. However he did not convince me that UK airstrikes at this time would materially reduce that threat. The Prime Minister was clear that Daesh cannot be defeated from the air. The situation in Syria is complex and factionalised, with many state and non-state actors who may be enemies of our enemy and yet not our friend. The Prime Minister claimed there were 70,000 ground troops in the moderate Free Syrian Army but many experts dispute that number and the evidence does not convince me that they are in a position to lead an effective ground campaign. Bombs alone will not prevent Daesh obtaining money, arms and more recruits or launching attacks on the UK. The Prime Minister did not set out how we would do that, his was not a plan for security and peace in Syria with airstrikes a necessary support to it, but a plan to bomb Syria, with peace and security cited in support of it. That is not good enough for me.

Daesh are using civilian population as human shields. Syrians in exile speak of the impossibility of targeting the terrorists without hitting innocent bystanders. I fear that bombing Raqqa to eliminate Daesh may be like bombing Gaza to eliminate Hamas – hugely costly in terms of the civilian population and ultimately ineffectual.

Yet the evil that Daesh perpetrate demands a response. President Hollande has called on us to join with French forces. I lived in Paris for three years, I spent time in just about every location that was attacked two weeks ago, I have many friends living in Paris now, I believe the French are our friends and allies and we should stand and act in solidarity with them, and all those who have suffered in Mali, Kenya, Nigeria, Lebanon, Tunisia and around the world.

But there are other ways to act as well as airstrikes. Britain is the only G7 country to meet its international development commitments, we are already one of the biggest humanitarian contributors to stemming the Syrian crisis, we can do more not only in terms of supporting refugees but helping those still in Syria, whether living in fear of Daesh or Assad. We can show the world that our response is to build rather than bomb. The Prime Minister argues that without taking part in the bombing we will not have a place at the table for the reconstruction. I would think our allies would be reluctant to overlook our financial commitment.

We can also do more to cut off Daesh funding, targeting their oil wells, their revenues, their customers and their suppliers. This may not be as immediately satisfying as bombing the terrorists but it is a more effective means of strangling them.

The vast majority of the constituents who contacted me were against airstrikes. I agree with them for the reasons I set out above. I should say that I have had no experience of bullying or attempts at intimidation in reaching this decision, Newcastle Central is too friendly, frank, comradely and Geordie a constituency for that. But some have suggested that I should vote against airstrikes to ensure a “clear conscience” ’. This is not the case. There will be more killings and innocent deaths whether there are UK airstrikes or not, and we will all bear a portion of responsibility for them.

A version of this article was originally sent to Chi Onwurah's constituents, and can be read here