Show Hide image

Chart of the day: No change from the Bank of England, Federal Reserve or European Central Bank (Yawn, slight return)

A day of rest for the central banks, it seems.

Yesterday, the Federal Open Market Committee decided offer no additional monetary easing. The Wall Street Journal, home of Jon Hilsenrath, who is often spot-on when it comes to Feb predictions, thinks that they may make a move next month (£), but for now, the committee seems to be taking the view that stable (albeit low-ish) growth and low inflation beats taking the risk of an inflation spike to tackle the high – and calcifying – levels of unempolyment.

The Bank of England also decided to take no action, keeping rates at half a percent and maintaining QE at £325bn. Unlike the FOMC, the monetary policy committee doesn't release its minutes until after the rate decision, so we can't know the reasoning behind its (lack of) action, but in all likelihood the constantly dropping inflation is luring it into a sense of security. Admittedly, that security isn't backed up by any other aspect of the economy, but despite Cameron's claim to be a "fiscal conservative but a monetary activist", neither he nor Osborne have made any move to changing the Bank's aim from stabilising inflation to a broader targeting of nominal GDP.

And the European Central Bank also declined to do anything to its rates, after slashing the deposit rate to a record low last month. But it did announce some unconventional monetary policy, as expected - and much bigger than anyone predicted. The FT reports:

The ECB can make outright purchases in open market operations "of a size adequate to reach its objectives," Mr Draghi has said. That almost certainly means a re-vamped bond buying programme.

So not every central banker is asleep at the wheel. Can it save the euro? Probably not. But it may delay some of the pain.

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

How can Britain become a nation of homeowners?

David Cameron must unlock the spirit of his postwar predecessors to get the housing market back on track. 

In the 1955 election, Anthony Eden described turning Britain into a “property-owning democracy” as his – and by extension, the Conservative Party’s – overarching mission.

60 years later, what’s changed? Then, as now, an Old Etonian sits in Downing Street. Then, as now, Labour are badly riven between left and right, with their last stay in government widely believed – by their activists at least – to have been a disappointment. Then as now, few commentators seriously believe the Tories will be out of power any time soon.

But as for a property-owning democracy? That’s going less well.

When Eden won in 1955, around a third of people owned their own homes. By the time the Conservative government gave way to Harold Wilson in 1964, 42 per cent of households were owner-occupiers.

That kicked off a long period – from the mid-50s right until the fall of the Berlin Wall – in which home ownership increased, before staying roughly flat at 70 per cent of the population from 1991 to 2001.

But over the course of the next decade, for the first time in over a hundred years, the proportion of owner-occupiers went to into reverse. Just 64 percent of households were owner-occupier in 2011. No-one seriously believes that number will have gone anywhere other than down by the time of the next census in 2021. Most troublingly, in London – which, for the most part, gives us a fairly accurate idea of what the demographics of Britain as a whole will be in 30 years’ time – more than half of households are now renters.

What’s gone wrong?

In short, property prices have shot out of reach of increasing numbers of people. The British housing market increasingly gets a failing grade at “Social Contract 101”: could someone, without a backstop of parental or family capital, entering the workforce today, working full-time, seriously hope to retire in 50 years in their own home with their mortgage paid off?

It’s useful to compare and contrast the policy levers of those two Old Etonians, Eden and Cameron. Cameron, so far, has favoured demand-side solutions: Help to Buy and the new Help to Buy ISA.

To take the second, newer of those two policy innovations first: the Help to Buy ISA. Does it work?

Well, if you are a pre-existing saver – you can’t use the Help to Buy ISA for another tax year. And you have to stop putting money into any existing ISAs. So anyone putting a little aside at the moment – not going to feel the benefit of a Help to Buy ISA.

And anyone solely reliant on a Help to Buy ISA – the most you can benefit from, if you are single, it is an extra three grand from the government. This is not going to shift any houses any time soon.

What it is is a bung for the only working-age demographic to have done well out of the Coalition: dual-earner couples with no children earning above average income.

What about Help to Buy itself? At the margins, Help to Buy is helping some people achieve completions – while driving up the big disincentive to home ownership in the shape of prices – and creating sub-prime style risks for the taxpayer in future.

Eden, in contrast, preferred supply-side policies: his government, like every peacetime government from Baldwin until Thatcher’s it was a housebuilding government.

Why are house prices so high? Because there aren’t enough of them. The sector is over-regulated, underprovided, there isn’t enough housing either for social lets or for buyers. And until today’s Conservatives rediscover the spirit of Eden, that is unlikely to change.

I was at a Conservative party fringe (I was on the far left, both in terms of seating and politics).This is what I said, minus the ums, the ahs, and the moment my screensaver kicked in.

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