Welcome to the New Statesman website. Please sign in or register to participate in the conversation.

Let’s hope Cameron is for turning

In his New Year message, the Prime Minister claimed to have all the answers. He clearly doesn’t.

www.newstatesman.com

In his New Year message, the Prime Minister claimed to have all the answers. He clearly doesn’t.

David Cameron's official New Year message certainly caught my attention. His comments about the economy are unconvincing codswallop. The US has made it clear that fiscal stimulus and tax cuts are realistic alternatives to the spending cuts – alternatives that Cameron ignores at his peril. It could all go bad, and quickly.

Here is a point-by-point rebuttal to his claims.

1. "We have been living seriously beyond our means. We have to sort this out. Every sensible person knows this."

Actually, we haven't been living beyond our means. We have just been hit by a once-in-a hundred-years financial crisis; it takes a while to recover from such a significant shock. There are many different ways to "sort out" this problem and your way is not the only way.

A better way would be to cut taxes and increase public spending as the United States has just done. As Alan Johnson has argued, raising VAT right now, for starters, looks like a really dumb idea.

2. "The national interest dictates that we do the right thing, which is to act, not the easy thing, which would be to delay. In doing so, we should be clear: Britain has a really bright future to look forward to."

It is plausible that the national interest is best served by delaying paying off the deficit, in order to stimulate growth. Only time will tell whether the steps your government has taken are necessary or not.

Judging by historical precedent, there is a non-negligible probability that these policies will turn out to be a disaster. What if you are wrong, Mr Cameron, and the markets turn against you or growth falters? Then what?

Directionally challenged

3. "The actions we are taking are essential, because they are putting our economy and our country on the right path. Together, we can make 2011 the year that Britain gets back on its feet."

They are certainly not "essential" and there is a significant chance that this is the wrong path. For many, 2011 is going to be a year when they are knocked off their feet. An Ipsos/MORI poll published on 1 January found that British people were among the most pessimistic in the world about their prospects. Only 17 per cent said they expected their financial position to improve in the next six months – half the number that thought the same in Australia (35 per cent) and the United States (34 per cent). Three-quarters of the UK workers said they felt less secure in their job than they did just six months ago.

4. "Eight months ago we inherited an economy in deep trouble. The previous government had racked up the biggest budget deficit in our peacetime history."

Again, our economy was hit by a once-in-a-hundred-years crisis – and the actions of the fiscal and monetary authorities prevented another Great Depression. If I recall, Prime Minister, you and your party opposed these actions and were in favour of all the deregulation that ultimately caused the crisis. So what would you have done differently to resolve it? You had no answer then; why should we believe you have one now?

5. "We only have to look at what's been happening in Greece or Ireland to see the kind of danger we were in. Rising interest rates. Falling confidence. Others questioning whether you are still creditworthy as a country."

Nonsense. What has happened in Greece and Ireland is largely irrelevant, as they are stuck in monetary union. The UK has its own central bank and a floating exchange rate. What is relevant is that fiscal austerity appears to have failed in both countries as growth has been compromised. Bad example. And business and consumer confidence has collapsed in the UK since you took office.

6. "Remember, the deficit we inherited back in May was actually forecast to be bigger than that of Ireland or Greece – or any other developed country for that matter. But we have pulled Britain out of that danger zone."

In fact, the UK was never in a danger zone. But we may well be in one soon, when the coalition's misguided spending cuts and tax increases take effect. The public finances have worsened sharply under the coalition. The latest data showed a big increase in both the size of the debt and the debt-to-GDP ratio.

7. "Through the Budget and the Spending Review we've taken some really tough decisions to rescue our public finances and fundamentally change the direction of our economy."

It is true that the coalition has made a number of announcements, though it remains unclear whether the government will change the economy for the better. At this point we still don't know if it has even made any of the "efficiency savings" it trumpeted in May 2010. It is very likely that destroying large numbers of jobs will fundamentally change the direction of the economy. Ask any young person.

8. "So we have a credible plan for restoring confidence in our economy. But we have to see it through."

Judging by the evidence up to this point, you don't. To repeat, confidence has collapsed and unemployment is rising. Your plan is not credible as it is based on an assumption the private sector will step in, in a way it has never done before. Continuously saying you have to "see it through" is a dangerous strategy. Suppose your plan is entirely wrong-headed, as many believe – including me. You will be in big trouble.

Curb your zeal

9. "We're tackling the deficit because we have to – not out of some ideological zeal. This is a government led by people with a practical desire to sort out this country's problems, not by ideology. When we talk of building a bigger, stronger society, we mean it."

You may well mean it, but simply repeating that it isn't ideological doesn't mean it isn't – or that you know what you are doing. Historical precedent is against you. Plus, your response is exactly what a zealot would say.

10. "We are all in this together."

No we aren't. VAT is a regressive tax. The millionaires in cabinet will not become homeless or become depressed because of worries about paying the bills. The poor, the weak, children, single mothers and the disabled are going to pay a big price for this coalition's doctrinaire attack on them. Rising unemployment and inequality make people unhappy.

Thank goodness, Mr Cameron, you are gaining a reputation as someone who is for turning. My advice is to have a plan B ready.

David Blanchflower is economics editor of the NS and a professor at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire, and the University of Stirling

54 comments

I want to be a serf's picture

@ang

Instead of going on about conspiracy theories that the rich are enslaving the poor and wiping out the middle class (which by the way was Browns modus operandi - that is it what easier to fleece, thieve and subjugate the middle class than try and raise the standards of the working class),try thinking about what I was actually arguing - class warfare (rich vs poor, north vs south etc)is the stuff of student politics and best left in the 6th form classroom.

DB was denying that we are, or have been, living beyond our means; leaning on, and using as an excuse, the financial crisis as the reason for the fiscal mess we are in. This is a fraction of the truth. We had a deficit before the crisis happened. We were spending far more than we were earning, largely due to the wasteful, ideological spending habits of socialists like Brown amd his cabal of thieves.

As I said, stealing is unethical. Well at least it was when I grew up. Just because a government can do it within the constraints of the law, doesn't make it acceptable or ethical. In fact it is worse. Since records began, labour has always treated the taxpayer as never-ending piggy-bank justifying its profligacy with its best for society - utter rot. Excessive, unjustified taxation is theft - clearly the argument revolves around what people see as justified but labour wouldn't know where to begin- they just spend their way to popularity; irrespective of the long term costs and damage it does.

Probably the single biggest problem facing mature, decaying western countries is the obscene amount of money that is gobbled up in taxation. It destroys real productivity (not the fake kind Brown had in mind), and over time, the wealth of nations.

We were over taxed before the crisis because of Brown's insane and deluded sense of economics. De facto, if were over taxed we must have been living beyond our means and it is a lie to blame the crisis. If anything, in a perverse cruel twisted of fate, the financial crisis expedited what would have happened before long, if Brown had been allowed to carry on with his pernicious madness.

You cannot take what is not yours by right. And governments shod be required in law to justify every penny it takes. And I'm not talking about the failed, useless form of democracy that is the status quo.

We need to lower taxes, eliminate all the obscene waste that has built up in central and local government over the last decade, direct precious resources to all those who need it most, revamp the nhs so that it is delivering the best free healthcare in the world rather than wasting hundreds of millions on bureaucracy, deliver world class education that is not distorted by political agendas, have a defence force that meets the demands of modern world, eradicate, through legislation if necessary, the damaging impact of political correctness and all this could be done with a lot less cash than we are spending today.

Hans Castorp's picture

Stuart

I'm afraid that, while what you say sounds like it makes sense in man-down-the-pub, City AM editorial kind of way, it actually doesn't. Read Adam Posen.

Inflation comes from many things, pre-eminently a demand for goods and services at or near the level of supply, after which we have increased commodity prices and so on.

UK core inflation (the whole supply demand heat of the economy stuff) is very low right now. RPI etc is higher, because of the increased cost of raw materials and fuel.

"Printing money" is the last in a long queue of factors, especially in an economy where liquid cash money in currency form is only a small part of the monetary base (M2, M3), and is within the control of the central bank. The size of M2 monetary exapansion and change in credit conditions in the UK economy is very small relative to GDP.

There is simply no way that monetary policy is dementing price stability right now.

Do also bear in mind, we are talking at present about a historically very low rate of inflation indeed. No one is about to resort to hoarding tinned food and ammunition (though gold bugs like Glenn Beck would counsel otherwise).

It only looks as bad as it does because of the terrible state of our credit economy, which necessarily requires a zero bound interest rate to move at all, and will only itself heal if liquidity preference is shifted from savings to investments.

It is important to think of what actually creates jobs, which stimulates the economy, which gives savings better places to go than gilts. Without moderate inflation there is no incentive to invest, and it is investment we need after the withdrawal and declension of so much capital from the markets in 2008.

Indeed, low rates right now signal demand from the market for the government to spend because the private sector will not, and pay it back in the good times with receipts from future growth i.e. some fiscal restraint and higher taxes. The bonus here is that this will also ben the time when Joe Public is best able to pick up the tab, as opposed to now.

The finest summary of this is here:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/liquidity-preference-loanabl...

We are nowhere near a danger of inflation hampering growth, and if needed the BoE can cause reduce inflation to reduce overnight.

And, in economic and human terms, workers with lots to do and spend are far more important to an economy's health than the rates enjoyed by savers.

Lastly, if you look at the market cost of insuring gilt values right now, it's still very low (though under Osborne it has risen somewhat), so the market is not worried in the least by some prospect of the Treasury and the BoE clubbing together to escape Blighty's debt burden by debauching her currency.

Essentially, what I'm saying is, do your homework.

I posted on your libertarian point separately, which will hopefully pop up soon.

Union Steve's picture

Neo-liberalism is not out of the woods. In fact if the truth were reported about retail lay off and closures were publicised then the words of wisdom of Mr Blantchflower would be taken seriously

Eddy S's picture

i evaded taxes only this week when i filled my car with diesel before the tax increases. felt good holding onto my own money.

Hans Castorp's picture

Ha! Good job Eddy
And yes, I appreciate the irony of having called for concision and then followed it up with something of an essay.

You also have it somewhat arse about face re Blanchflower's politics. The idea with analysis and commentary is that it should come from a wellspring of fact and reasoned argument. Saying "I'm a libertarian therefore I think X and Y" doesn't cut it, and just makes you sound like you are in a religious cult, the dange being that in any cult, faith is the primary virtue. Therein lies the paradox of libertarianism: the credo comes first.

Hans Castorp's picture

Stuart, you might also consult this too:

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2011/01/l...

Mike Thomas's picture

Hans,

Come on then, let's have some a little more advanced than Blanchflower's Naive Keynesianism for Lefties.

What is your assessment of the UK economy c2002 to the present day?

You can rubbish opinion but you can only destroy an argument by postulating and presented your own.

Otherwise, the opinion of the bin man currently collecting my wheelie bin has just as valid a point as you.

Hans Castorp's picture

Why can't people keep it brief? All we seem to get on NS comments re economic policy are half-baked, overlong, economically illiterate doctrinaire diatribes from cod-Hayekian bumsuckers.

Funny how libertarians ALL THINK THE SAME.

Red Shift's picture

Fiscal anorexia is addictive and isn't a solution to the fiscal mess.

mike555's picture

@ona

I'll try and explain why I post as I've been critical in the past, though I always try to remain respectful and not get into childish insults. I seek answers to questions I have. When I see people being interviewed on TV or if I read an article I always have questions which are going round my head which are almost never asked.

So I came on to ask them myself. The main problem I have with low rate, QE, borrow spend etc is that it has helped prop the cost of housing up at prohibitive levels. That's been very socially divisive.

It's right that we should look after the poorest in society and we need more equality, I think most people are striving for the same goal but disagree how to get there. I don't think policies which maintain this division caused by low rates/high lending/high houses prices is the healthiest way forward necessarily.

I have learnt things from reading this column too. I don't think debate is bad, if people just speak to people they agree with all the time you stay closed to new ideas or flaws in your argument, and you'd never get your own point across to a wider audience. People shouldn't be scared of debate.

Post new comment

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Latest tweets