The response to austerity can't be on the terms which led us into it

The only effective response must be to repudiate the debt, writes Molly Scott Cato

It is disappointing that the response from the Left in Britain to the politics of austerity has been so limp. The brilliant coup from the interests of capital to paint the economic crisis as a crisis of government debt and public spending—and therefore the basis for an attack on the ideology of the left—has seen little in the way of aggressive intellectual response.

The simple explanation for this is that the left is divided. The line taken by the socialist and labour left has largely been one of denial. This is not a high level of debt, they argue. By historical standards, we have survived much higher levels of debt. Why, after the last war we faced debts on a far greater scale and yet that is when we established the health service.

I think this is a mistaken approach to the politics of austerity. For one thing, it will not wash. Citizens have a sense of there having been a vast amount of cash floating around during the Labour years. They also know that consumption, individual and national, was based on untrammelled credit. This is their sense of how life was, and they are not wrong.

Secondly, the parallel between our economy now and in the 1950s does not hold up to scrutiny. At that time we were an imperial nation and the workshop of the world, if a somewhat scruffy one making rather unfashionable products. We could use our empire as a vast ‘internal’ market, sucking in resources and finding compliant customers for our products. We could repay our debts through hard, productive labour—and we did. Now what do we have to offer the world as justification for the debts we have incurred? Our favourite offering of financial services is finding considerably less favour than five years ago.

But most importantly we should reject this line of argument because it is morally wrong. We should not have to live through the 1950s again, working hard to return interest to those who loaned us money. Back then it was US and Canadian capitalists who, through lend-lease, had ensured that the value created by British workers would flow back to them. We would not have won the war without US productive capacity, but we would not have lost the peace as spectacularly as we did had they not insisted that we continue to pay for it right up to 2006, just two years before the credit crisis.

Rather than arguing about how we should pay it back we should be repudiating the debt.

This is what has been happening in other European countries, where Citizens’ Audit have been established, inspired by the examples of the Latin American countries who refused to pay their debts during the last decade. Why should we pay back money loaned to us by financial institutions who have the power to create money by electronic fiat, they asked. And we should be asking the same question. By the time we had paid our wartime debts—the debts we incurred for defeating Hitler and protecting European democracy—we had paid our ‘allies’ the US and Canada, or rather US and Canadian capitalists and financiers, twice what we had borrowed. This iniquitous use of the power of money to extract value should be the real target of the left.

Earlier this week Portugal’s citizens’ audit campaign published a preliminary technical report: ‘Understand the debt to get out of the trap’; the Spanish campaign is called ‘Who owes whom?’ and is part of the work of the indignados. The Irish citizens audit, supported by UNITE as well as debt campaign groups, challenged circular nature of Irish debt-holding, with the government guaranteeing banks which, in turn, hold its debt. It found that Irish debt had been transformed from a safe and boring investment to a vehicle of speculative interest. Its authors used Kissinger’s term of “constructive ambiguity” to describe the deliberate use of recondite language to undermine the citizen’s power to understand the actions of their politicians.

The real purpose of a citizens’ audit is precisely to challenge this “constructive ambiguity”. Most people never question whether it is right that they should pay interest to a bank for the privilege of buying their home, although they will pay around twice the cost of the house by the term of the mortgage. Whether this is just depends on how the bank acquired the money and in these days when the corrupt dealings of banks are becoming revealed in more egregious detail every day, an audit into how our debt was acquired, who owns it, and who will receive the money that we are paying in return for our borrowings is urgently overdue.

Photograph: Getty Images

Molly Scott Cato is Green MEP for the southwest of England, elected in May 2014. She has published widely, particularly on issues related to green economics. Molly was formerly Professor of Strategy and Sustainability at the University of Roehampton.

Getty
Show Hide image

Jeremy Corbyn is not standing down - 172 people cannot drown out democracy

The Labour Party could right now be exploiting a bitter Conservative leadership contest, writes shadow chancellor John McDonnell. 

The shadow chancellor writes exclusively for The New Statesman amid one of the most turbulent weeks in politics this century.

The “coup” taking place in the Labour Party

The instability from Brexit has extended into the Parliamentary Labour Party with members of the shadow cabinet standing down. I would like to thank all of those who have participated with me for their work.

Frustratingly, this has come at the worst possible time for our country. And at a time in which we our party could have used to reset the economic narrative that the Tories planted in the public during the summer of 2010 when our party was in the midst of a leadership contest.

Our party right now could be exploiting a bitter Conservative leadership contest that’ll probably lead to electing a Tory leader who will be responsible for any economic fallout from Brexit. The Tories have peddled lies over the past six years over the management of our economy and the state of the public finance, which the decision last Thursday is sadly exposing.

I strongly believe that if some colleagues are not careful then they may cause irreparable damage to our party and the country. 

The Labour Party changed last September. Jeremy was elected with the largest mandate of any political leader in the history of our country. Our party’s values of democracy and solidarity seem to be asked of the membership and always met. Sadly not by some members of the PLP. 

There are those in our party who could not come to terms with the fact that a quarter of a million members could clearly see that the our party’s broken election model has lead to two back to back defeats and needed replacing. Like the wisdom of crowds, our membership understands that we cant keep going on doing the same thing electorally and getting the same results.

I believe that we can all still work together, but I feel some MPs need to get off their chest what they have been holding back since last Autumn. Maybe then they will hear the message that our membership sent them.

The truth is that Jeremy is not standing down. In the Labour Party our members are sovereign. There was an election held and a decision made, and 172 people cannot outweigh a quarter of a million others. 

It would risk sending the worst possible message we could send as a party to the electorate - that Labour does not respect the democratic process.

The economics of Brexit

The Leave vote delivered an immense shock to the political system creating great instability. Of immediate concern is the deteriorating economic situation. Credible economic forecasters virtually unanimously warned that leaving the European Union would be an enormous shock to the economy. 

The disagreements centred on the severity of the shock, and the long-term damage done. To that initial shock must be added the realisation that there was no plan made for a post-Brexit Britain. 

George Osborne has not secured the foundations of our economy and the market volatility reflects that missed opportunity. With turmoil continuing, and major employers already threatening redundancies, the immediate task is to stabilise markets and reassure investors and savers that financial institutions remain rock solid. 

The measures announced by Bank of England Governor Mark Carney early on Friday morning, and the later statement from the Chancellor, are to be welcomed and we have requested a briefing under Privy Council rules on the financial authorities’ contingency plans. It is also reassuring that George Osborne has now moved a threatened, post-Brexit austerity Budget until at least the Autumn. 

Nonetheless, with a recession now forecast, any attempt to push further austerity measures in response to the crisis would be an act of exceptional economic folly. The Chancellor’s own fiscal targets have long since been missed and simply redoubling the misery of spending cuts and tax rises will not bring them any closer to achievement. 

What is needed in a crisis like this is urgent government action to shore up investment, already falling before the vote. Shovel-ready projects should be brought forward, creating jobs and focused on beginning to rebuild those parts of the country currently most deprived – and where the vote to Leave was strongest. As a country we will get through this crisis, and we will do so when we no longer tolerate a situation in which too many of our people are excluded from even the chance of prosperity.

The referendum result

I have been in consultation with many economist, trade union and business leaders since the early hours of the morning when we learnt the result. I hope to give a speech this Friday going into further details of Labour’s economic response, but the result last Thursday came as a blow to many of us in the Labour Party.

All wings of the Labour movement fought hard, and two-thirds of our voters swung to Remain – the same as the SNP, and far more than the Tories, who split 60:40 for Leave. 

Labour will now be fighting to ensure whatever negotiations now take place, and whatever proposals the government chooses to bring forward, will maintain hard-won protections for working people in this country.

The new Labour leadership inherited the Labour In campaign last year. Obviously as with any campaign we will now have to reassess, but the hard work of the staff who worked on the campaign cannot be questioned. They did a fantastic job. 

Jeremy Corbyn also managed to help get out a larger number of our voters than the other main Westminster leaders across the country. 

But the sad truth is that we lost regardless. We need to learn lessons of the referendum and the General Election campaigns, and question whether the way we campaign as a party needs to be changed. 

It is clear that we cannot fight the next election using the same outdated practises and policies that were in place at the last two general elections, and the recent referendum. 

We cannot continue to do the same things in the same ways and get the same results. Those people who need a Labour government the most cannot afford it.


John McDonnell is Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington and has been shadow chancellor since September 2015.