Nigel Farage is a monetary dove

The Ukip leader has come out in favour of changing the Bank of England's inflation target.

Nigel Farage, the leader of Ukip, has used an opinion piece in London's City A.M. newspaper to announce his support for a looser Bank of England mandate. Farage writes:

The mandate of the Bank has been focused on avoiding a repeat of the last crisis, instead of addressing the root of the problem we face today. Its negative focus on fighting inflation is put to shame by the positive objectives of the US Federal Reserve’s dual mandate that it “shall maintain long-run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates, commensurate with the economy’s long-run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices and moderate long-term interest rates.” That is the language of Ukip economics – maximum employment, growth, and a positive outlook.

The move is quite some way from the usual populism of the Ukip manifesto. On the other hand, it serves to distinguish the party from the hard money tendency within the Conservative party, and while there's no shortage of politicians calling on the Bank to be tough on inflation, the market for expansionist policies is markedly less crowded.

One reason for the intervention is made clear by Farage; in supporting Carney's more expansionary tendencies, he is coming out against the European Central Bank:

Where is the worst major league central bank mandate? Europe and the European Central Bank, of course. It makes a god out of fighting inflation, whatever the human cost. In the arid world of central banking, it is time for the UK to turn away from Europe.

Farage's analysis of the ECB is not wrong. It is widely acknowledged to have a far greater fear of inflation than is healthy, largely because of the over-powerful influence Germany has on the Bank's policy. The German fear of inflation is legendary, and the single currency means that the policy Germany wants is the policy the eurozone gets.

But the Bank of England and the ECB are like apples and oranges in more ways than just their attitude to inflation. If Farage really thinks he can learn what is best for England by doing the opposite of what the ECB does, he'll get lucky a couple of times; but in the end, that strategy will fail.

Farage smokes. 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.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.