Welcome back to 1930s Britain
Cameron's claims of a new economic dynamism, but with no money, are just more weasel words.
By David Blanchflower Published 28 October 2010
I am writing this from beautiful Hong Kong, having arrived here late at night on a flight from Beijing. It was a pleasant shock to wake this morning to see double-decker buses driving on the left-hand side of the road so far from home.
I came to Beijing for the launch of Bloomberg's Chinese-language service and to sit on a panel to discuss China's role in the new world order. The throng of Chinese tourists at the Forbidden City somehow made it more real to us that China is a country of 1.3 billion people. The highlight of the trip so far was a visit to the Great Wall - something I have always wanted to do. The most comprehensive archaeological survey has recently concluded that the entire Great Wall, with all of its branches, stretches for 5,500 miles. We didn't walk all of it.
As for the awful traffic jams, I understand that the number of cars in Beijing is increasing by 2,000 a day and as a consequence air quality in the city is very bad. Most of them seemed to be German - BMWs, Audis and VWs were everywhere. From our hotel room on the 49th floor, we could only just see the ground because of the dense smog. It did eventually clear on the fourth day of our visit and then we had a great view across the city to the mountains. Next stop Singapore, where they also drive on the left.
Sheffield steal
The 20 October Spending Review was much as I expected. According to the Chancellor, George Osborne, the country had run out of money and was close to bankruptcy, and the cuts of over £80bn were fair. This was all spin. We were never close to bankruptcy; the country has not run out of money and the cuts are unfair.
The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies quickly showed that the poor would be hit hardest in the years ahead. The Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, bleated that the institute's comments about fairness were unfair, but nobody takes any notice of what he says any longer. Students in his Sheffield constituency, who were instrumental in getting him elected, are now, because of his flip-flop over tuition fees, apparently gathering signatures calling for the local election to be rerun, in the spirit of Clegg's own proposals to allow MPs accused of financial impropriety to be recalled.
Meanwhile, Britain's new Nobel prizewinner in economics, Chris Pissarides, my old friend and colleague from the LSE, quickly put to rest Osborne's claim that everyone from the Dalai Lama to the Pope supported his mad cull of jobs. "No one doubts that the Chancellor is taking risks with the recovery," Pissarides wrote in the Sunday Mirror. "These risks were not necessary at this point. He could have outlined a clear deficit reduction plan over the next five years, postponing more of the cuts, until recovery became less fragile. The 'sovereign risk' would have been minimal."
Unsurprisingly, support for the cuts is beginning to crumble as reality bites. A YouGov survey found that 44 per cent of respondents thought the cuts were too harsh, compared to 38 per cent who said they were about right. The majority, 55 per cent, said they agreed that "the government's plans to cut public spending amount to a desperate gamble with people's livelihoods".
There is a growing consensus against the cuts among commentators, from Martin Wolf and Samuel Brittan in the Financial Times to Anatole Kaletsky in the Times (none of whom can be called a left-winger), as well as from the first ministers, deputy first ministers and finance ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
In addition, the Nobel Prize-winning economists Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz have both written stinging critiques of Osborne's dangerous gamble. In the New York Times, Krugman warned: "The best guess is that Britain in 2011 will look like Britain in 1931, or the United States in 1937, or Japan in 1997. That is, premature fiscal austerity will lead to a renewed economic slump. As always, those who refuse to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it."
By contrast, Osborne's expectation is that the private sector will step in to create lots of jobs and maintain growth. He hopes, too, that the Chinese will start buying British goods like gangbusters. Yet there is little sign that is going to happen any time soon, as it depends on an appreciation in the yuan. Despite his protestations, the US treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, made little progress on that front at the recent G20 meeting in South Korea.
Osborne's nightmare
There was further bad news for the government from Markit's regional purchasing managers' index (PMI), published after the Spending Review, which showed a sharp deterioration in household finances. Negative sentiment about the 12-month outlook was most prominent among public-sector workers. Markit also found that "an air of anxiety continued to seep into the private sector". A decline in consumer spending would be one of Osborne's nightmare scenarios, as that would slam growth.
The GDP figures for the third quarter of 2010, published on 26 October, were much better than expected, with growth at 0.8 per cent, though they suggest the economy has slowed since the second quarter. The figures show that Alistair Darling's strategy was working well, contrary to what the coalition government has claimed. The question now is whether it will be blown off course by Osborne's austerity package. The puzzle remains why this growth figure is much stronger than suggested by the various business surveys, especially the PMI. Given that it is a preliminary estimate, it could still be revised downwards as more data comes in.
It seems likely that the economy will slow further in the fourth quarter, despite being boosted by spending brought forward to avoid the VAT increase to 20 per cent in January, and there is concern that GDP growth will be negative in the first quarter of 2011.
Cameron's claims of a new economic dynamism, but with no money, are just more weasel words. Success or failure will be determined by the data. The Q3 figures are a start. The worry is that it is downhill from here.
David Blanchflower is a labour economist and a professor at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, and the University of Stirling
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


34 comments
Paul Krugman's article "British Fashion Victims" can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/opinion/22krugman.html
'Socialism is back on the agenda in the Union bar' The problem is Union Steve. Socialism is not back on the agenda on the shop floor....
No, not the 1930s but the 1820s and 1830s, when the likes of Lord Melbourne could say, 'the poor are always with us'. Part of the reason for that was the polticians' sheer ignorance of the lives of real people who were suffering. This Tory government cannot plead ignorance. So what is their excuse?
The thought of voluntarily shedding half a million jobs at a time like this, is shocking in it's brutality and stupidity. Then we have to add on at least two, probably in the private sector, for every job jetisoned. Throwing so many jobs away, so casually; bleeding so much consumption and demand out of a weak economy, is precisely the wrong medicine to apply to an already weakened patient.
What's needed is a government that's perpared to fight like mad to save and keep every single job, and the demand that rides on these jobs, because the role of demand cannot be underestimated in a complex and modern 'market enconomy.'
Demand, demand, demand. It's the key element which keeps everything going. Undermine that and economy begins to wind down. An easy, effective, and cheap way to increase demand and the health of the economy is to put money in the pockets of the poor and working people, one way or another. They, for obvious reasons, will spend it thereby increasing demand; in contrast to the financial sector which refuses to spend and is investing their handouts abroad where the returns are higher than in the UK.
But this current government, aristocrats with an eighteenth century undersanding of capitalism, are ideologically opposed to economic reality, preferring the comforting mythology of vulgar liberalism and bastardised Adam Smith, which I garantee they have never read.
They are using this crisis as welcome excuse to impose an ideological straightjacket on the economy, in an attempt to create another type of country, the Britain of the eighteenth century which is where their heads are.
Cameron's claims of a new economic dynamism, but with no money, are just more weasel words.
Why don't we have any money? It can't possibly have anything to do with. Mr Brown and his squandering ways could it......
ektope!! economic reasoning now you certainly can't be talking about Gordon Brown. crypto conservative, thats a new one...
Clegg's pet Sheffield students are now looking for work, a task most difficult. The new lot will put him out of work. Socialism is back on the agenda in the Union bar.
According to google, what we tap about on our keyboards creates approx. £100m to the Brit economy.
Yes, you me and everyone spouting shite on the web, directly but also us indirectly.
So not quite 1930s, but the trouble is, I am not seeing much of this cash, to be truthful.
You would prefer the return of Brown the clown who bankrupted the country and along with the war criminal Blair swamped the country with enemy immigrants who will never work while breeding like dogs to suck the welfare system dry?
Labour will never rise after the last disastrous reign.
penruddock , Could you give us an example of one of the "infinite gradations of grey " that you'd like to see?
OK. He's "partisan", and who isn't? The present government aren't exactly "neutral" in their view of political economy are they, surely you don't believe that?
For example, one could have decided to drop all the complexity of all these cuts, which are so blatantly regressive, as opposed to progressive; and instead one might have radically reformed the tax system in progressive direction, and "paid" for the crisis that way. After all, it was the grotesque gambling culture of the financial sector that (probably) led into the crisis, or tipped us into it, so why not make them, so favoured by state largesse, pay for it through higher taxes and increased financial regulation? Now, that's what I'd call "partisan."
Now, where I come from people have so much excess and disposable income that they really don't know what to do with it all, so they feel they have to waste it in all sorts of decadent and useless ways. Taxing us more wouldn't hurt a bit, in reality we wouldn't even notice the change. On the other hand a transfer of wealth to the poor would have substantial economic and social benefits, and might have a sobering effect and impose some discipline on us, for a change.
After all, surely it's only right and fair that those ultmately responsible for the crisis, those who own soeciety, control the economy, and have power... should pay... not the poor?