My advice to Ed Balls: don’t follow Slasher’s lead and promise the earth

Who has really been telling "shameful lies"?

George Osborne gives a rare TV interview
George Osborne gives a rare TV interview at the start of Conservative Party conference. Photograph: Getty Images

In a speech at the 2009 Conservative party conference in Manchester, George “Slasher” Osborne offered a sneering overview of Labour policy with all sorts of claims about how the streets would be paved with gold if only the Tories were to win the next general election and he was made chancellor. The following spring, after an election a ham sandwich could have won but no one did, the Tories had to form a coalition with a turncoat party that for years had opposed austerity but paused a few days and reversed all of that, once ministerial cars were on offer.

The Lib Dems banked all on the UK economy rising from the ashes; they hoped that there would be an “expansionary fiscal contraction” and growth would emerge before 2015. The governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, has what must be the worst economic forecasting record of any governor in living memory. He failed to spot the recession and the subsequent double dip; he thought that the UK and the US had decoupled; he thought that there would be a wage spiral as a result of union power and appeared to have no clue that LIBOR (the London Inter-bank Offered Rate) was being fiddled, even though it was arguably his job to know. King told the coalition posh boys to slash away and all would be well. But it wasn’t.

Some of us even had the audacity to say all of that stuff was for the birds and warned that the government was committing economic suicide; but nobody much listened and on they ploughed. Sadly, the government is now in deep trouble and knows it. It will be interesting to hear how Slasher plans to wriggle out of this mess at the Tory conference in Birmingham.

Look back in anger

Before that, it seems appropriate to go back and look at the claims Osborne made, in his speech in 2009, about what he would deliver. First, he said that the Tory party would “lead the economy out of crisis”. That could hardly be further from the truth, as the coalition has pushed us into an even deeper crisis. We are in the slowest recovery since the Second World War and are perhaps even heading for a triple dip.

The chart below shows the current estimates of GDP growth along with the initial estimates, as data gets revised all the time. The economy was growing nicely when the coalition took over; it grew for five successive quarters from the third quarter of 2009 up to the third quarter of 2010, under Alistair Darling’s policies. Output is now 4.4 per cent lower than it was at the start of the recession in 2008 and has shrunk in five of the past seven quarters. It takes time for policies to feed through to the data, so if we assume that the coalition owns the data from the fourth quarter of 2010, the economy has shrunk 0.6 per cent.

The recession deniers are clueless. The recession hasn’t been revised away and isn’t going to be; the revisions average 0.1 per cent down over the past 20 quarters. Consumer and business confidence today is lower than it was when the coalition took office. The latest European Union sentiment index for the UK (reported in the second chart, below), which is a combination of business and consumer surveys, stands at 91.9, against 102.4 in May 2010, when the coalition took over. It is markedly lower than in Sweden (100.0), which recently moved to inject a stimulus into its economy. Confidence is especially low in the services sector, with a score of -22, compared to -10 in May 2010.

In November 2010, there were 2,477,000 unemployed, with an unemployment rate of 7.9 per cent. The latest data shows 2,645,000 unemployed in July 2012, with an unemployment rate of 8.2 per cent. Over the same period, average weekly earnings rose 3.3 per cent, while the Consumer Price Index has risen by 6.5 per cent, so real earnings have fallen sharply.

Far from leading us out of crisis, Osborne has made matters worse and pushed the UK economy into a double-dip recession. The latest UK PMI for manufacturing was disappointing, falling from 49.6 to 48.4 (anything below 50 indicates decline). This is the third month of declines and job losses are beginning to mount. The PMI for construction in September showed the biggest decline in new business since April 2009, so there’s little sign of green shoots.

I have every expectation that GDP in the next quarter may be positive but the fourth quarter is likely to be negative. Plus, the deficit is up by 22 per cent so far this year. As the shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, said in his Labour conference speech, we are seeing “rising borrowing, not to invest in the jobs of the future but to pay for the mounting costs of this government’s economic failure. There is nothing credible about a plan that leads to a double-dip recession . . . That’s not credible, that is just plain wrong.”

Holidays in the sun

Second, Osborne argued in 2009 that the Tories would protect public services, claiming: “We’re all in this together.” He had the audacity to repeat this phrase seven times. He then claimed: “Our determination as compassionate Conservatives [is] to protect the most vulnerable.” In truth, the poor are all in it together and the rich are holidaying in the south of France.

Sensibly, Balls hasn’t fallen into the same trap as Osborne did just before the election. He doesn’t need to say too much about what Labour would do, other than to reiterate that he will wait and see how serious is the mess he is likely to inherit. He is entitled to say he warned that this economic disaster was looming and things would have been a lot better had he been in charge. My main advice to Balls, though, is to stay away from the pork pies. We all know who told “shameful lies”.

David Blanchflower is economics editor of the New Statesman and professor of economics at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire.

61 comments

Matthew Fox 's picture

I know you have opinion Bozo555, that is the problem, I have destroyed your line of attack, and you haven't got the backbone to admit you are in the wrong.

Again let me remind you of your failings. You talk about Labour creating a housing boom, using taxation as a means, yet the evidence, clearly show otherwise, don't worry, I know this is another question that will go unanswered, like so many others.

I know you get things wrong Bozo555, it is on a industrial scale. But let us talk about Exhibit A, do you remember the conversation when you lectured me about all the " Housing indicators " showed a rise in house prices, yet when I mentioned the Land Registry, magically, the statement became a question, eventhough there was an abscence of a ?

Exhibit B Retail Sales. Not so many moons ago, we had a increase in retail sales, your initial telling contribution, was to state, " i bet that's the government fault as well "

Then me being me, pointed to the facts, sales of petrol and diesel, which are included in retail sales, had been increased by the stupidity of Francis Maude, who sparked a rush to the pumps.

But no you being you didn't want to play ball, did you Bozo555, when your wrong, you go missing or re-write your previous words.

By the way, I am keeping the Nationwide Consumer Confidence index issue up my sleeve.

mike555's picture

Is that the best you can do Fox? I dealt with all your ridicule anyone can go and look for themselves. Those 'exhibits' are beyond dismal.

"Again let me remind you of your failings. You talk about Labour creating a housing boom, using taxation as a means"

Show me where I've said Labour deliberately created a housing boom? I've said they didn't stop it, which plainly they didn't because you cannot change the fact that house prices tripled under New Labour which had a devastating effect on many peoples lives, something you don't appear to have an opinion on.

On the housing indicators exhibit, lets look at what I actually said rather than what you said I said:

"Plus, weren't the last months house price stats all pointing up?"

Definitely a question mark on the end of that, the article was "How the Work Programme could make the poor poorer" for anyone who wants to see what merit there is to your latest attempts to ridicule me. This was after the two main indices from Nationwide and Halifax were both up on the month.

Exhibit B is not even worth responding to. Also you've quoted me there, if you're going to do so, make sure it's word for word accurate and doesn't contain your own mistakes.

And as for the Nationwide Consumer Confidence Index, you mean where I asked why it didn't get a mention when it was up because it got mentioned when it was down? What is your point exactly? Is that the ace you have up your sleeve? Dear me. And where are all these lies I've posted?

"But no you being you didn't want to play ball, did you Bozo555, when your wrong, you go missing or re-write your previous words."

Not even you can write that with a straight face. And where are all these articles where I've gone missing? It's funny how you think I'm the one who disappears, thankfully it's all there in black and white, so I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve.

haywardsward's picture

Who started the USA down the slippery slope from creditor to debtor nation.

1981, shortly after taking office, Reagan complained of "runaway deficits" that were then approaching US$80 billion, or about 2.5 percent of GDP.

1983 Reaganomics had succeeded in enlarging the deficit to more than US$200 billion, or 6% GDP.

1993 Bush 1 deficit down to US$150 billion, still almost double what it had been under Carter. National Debt up from US$995 billion, when Reagan took office, to $4 trillion. Reaganomics, as applied by 3 Republican Administrations, had it grow as a % of GDP from 26% to 42%.

1993 Clinton managed hold/wind back both of them in returning the budget to a surplus of some US$280 billion and reducing the National Debt to 35% GDP.

2001 Bushednomics soon remedied that as The Faux Texan and late unlamented encumbrance in the White House, even managed to outdo "The Gipper" and his own Dad. Setting yet another unenviable record

The deficit was to be $482 billion in the 2009 budget moving from black to red ink in the order of US$750 billion from the end of Clinton's term.

2007 the Wall Street Tsunami led to to so much money sloshed around, including the socialist style buying of bank shares, that the deficit and the ND blew out again. Helped of course by the Three Trillion Dollar War/s, The Iraq Fiasco and the Afghan Imbroglio.

2008 to present after the WST, the GFC, that Global Financial Chicken coming home to roost with a fulsome, noisome pile of economic, financial and fiscal ordure that no incoming Administration could hope to cope with in the short term.

2011 US has to borrow c.40% 0f the funding to keep the country running.

1978-2005
Under Democratic Presidents, Federal Spending went up by 9.9%. Federal Debt by 4.2%, GDP by 12.6%.
Under Republican Presidents Federal Spending was up 12.1%, Federal
Debt by 36.4% , GDP by 10.7%

1995-2006 Republicans controlled Congress.
2001-2009 Republican Administration

Hugh C Markey's picture

George was just being 'economical' with the truth. It always works, The British electorate as individuals seem to be born every minute and this is a fact the Tories depend on. They have no compunction about conning the simple-minded.

Snake-Oil Salesmen

Indu Pendent's picture

You mean like Gordon manipulating "biggots"?

Did you know Labour borrowed £350bn before 2008 and the banking crisis? Funny you didnt if Labour did not try to manipulate and conceal.

Labours moto "what ever it takes" has been changed to "say whatever it takes" or is it the other way round.

Ludus57's picture

I am not sorry to tell you, Indu, that all your wittering will not disguise the fact that you appear to be wrong on virtually every point you make. Rest assured however that those of us who dwell in the real world of hard facts will always appreciate your own brand of post-ironic irony, cleverly disguised as infantile rightwing attempts at point scoring. I agree that New Labour was far from ideal, but just look at this lot.....!

Indu Pendent's picture

I see you are a would-be Miliband clone: emotive with no policy substance.

Tell me which hard facts and what I got wrong. You have very little idea of my background and life experiences.

I dont think there is anything infantile or point scoring about Labour borrowing £600Bn in an attempt to manipulate voters and win power. Just as I dont think there was anythink infantile about the massive borrowing of the National Socialists done for the same aims. And yes, parrallels can be drawn from history as the same process breakdowns occurred.

Ludus57's picture

I am no Milliband clone, but I can see a "rabid delusional anti labour stance for the sake of it" when I see it. That is what matters. As for labour borrowing £600 billion in order to bribe voters, well that is totally laughable. Labour have never been in the business of bribing voters. If they were they would have a much better record of retaining power after general elections. Your background and experience are a closed book to me , I agree, but your prejudices are in the public domain and are therefore open to friendly criticism. I good probably guess quite accurately about your background, but I have better things to do.

Indu Pendent's picture

I dont mind your criticisms of me at all. The irony is I have voted Labour.

All views are prejudices but its the basis for them which counts. You've revealed no substance for your pro-Labour prejudices which suggests it is blind opinion.

Labour did borrow £600Bn. Labour did try to conceal what they did. Like a giant ponzy fraud, what had been going on unravelled at the end with the banking crisis. Thats why they lost power. And a good thing too -- if Labour had carried on in power they would have double the national debt for a third time.

matthew fox's picture

Inastew, did you know Osborne is on course to borrow £600 Billion by 2015. This despite the much vaunted Plan A, which was suppose to eliminate deficits by 2015. No mention from the Right of borrowing post 2015.

Latest tweets