Europe’s debt mountains, Osborne’s Plan B and turning Greece into a debtors’ prison

Vicky Pryce on UKIP's respectable friends and Prisonomics.

Ukip’s respectable friends

 
Debates on whether the UK should leave the European Union are a growth industry. Of course we shouldn’t – and there shouldn’t be a referendum either, unless other like-minded countries ask to have powers given back to them, too, so that a new treaty would then need to be voted on.
 
Withdrawal makes no economic sense, given our trade and other ties with 500 million fellow Europeans and the EU’s £11trn market. That didn’t stop more than a thousand people meeting at the Guildhall for the in/out debate co-hosted by the Evening Standardand the Centre for London on 9 September. On the pro-Europe side were Vince Cable, Martin Sorrell of the advertising company WPP and me. The antis were the Labour MP Gisela Stuart, the businessman Luke Johnson and Jesse Norman, the last of these recently sacked as a government adviser by David Cameron for showing independence on the Syria vote.
 
I was shocked at the number of people who declared they were pro-Ukip. Still, I think the majority wanted us to stay in.

 

Choppy waters ahead

 
On the subject of the eurozone, I recently attended a conference organised by Professors Richard Portes and Hélène Rey at the London Business School to discuss how sustainable current debt levels are. Yes, a number of the periphery countries of Europe have managed to improve their current account balances and to move to primary surpluses in their public finances. However, the reason is mainly that they have stopped spending. Growth is minimal and debts of 120 per centplus of GDP are unsustainable.
 
The crisis has not gone away – many of the banks are in deep trouble and the latest data suggests that lending has been declining in most countries. There are some tentative signs of a pick-up but the debt overhang is bound to bring in more crises soon.
 
Steering the eurozone through the continuing turbulence will require a master helmsman or helmswoman. 

 

Ignoring our neighbours

 
The most important political event of the year is coming later this month. Yet if you read most newspapers, you would not know that there will be an election in Germany. Compare this to the year-long, day-by-day coverage of any US election and our indifference to politics across the Channel seems almost 1930s-esque in its frivolousness.
 
The only story here seems to be whether Angela Merkel will back the Prime Minister’s wish for a massive renegotiation and repatriation deal with the EU. My German friends say Keine Chance – “no way”. At the Guildhall debate, Cable said that the Lib Dems would support a referendum if it was warranted by a substantial change in our relationship with Europe. It didn’t sound like backing for a referendum come what may.

 

Balancing act

 
George Osborne has proclaimed that the UK’s cuts strategy was right after all and that he has been vindicated. In my view, the reason for any success is not austerity – the government has already implemented Plan B, as it has acknowledged some growth is better than none. Target dates for fiscal consolidation have been pushed back. The governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, indicates interest rates will stay low as long as possible. A huge injection of cash into the banking system through what is known as “Funding for Lending” and the additional increase in taxpayer-funded mortgage availability are boosting demand and construction. Growth is sustained by consumers borrowing more and more government spending. Nothing wrong with that – but where’s the rebalancing?
 

Greek encounter

 
Great relief. My forthcoming book, Prisonomics, looking at the costs and benefits of the prison system in England and Wales, has just gone through the last of its many edits with my editors and will be out in a few weeks’ time. Iain Dale of Biteback has revolutionised political publishing by cutting the year-long delays between writing and publication. I have also been updating Greekonomics, my book from last year on the eurozone crisis.
 
My research included a wonderful fish dinner near Athens recently with, among others, Mark Lowen, the BBC correspondent there. His lineage is amazing. One grandmother was a Jewish concert pianist in wartime Poland who played for Nazi brutes and lived for another day. His grandfather George Lowen was a young Jewish left-wing barrister in Berlin who worked in the defence team in the Reichstag trial in 1933. He fled to South Africa, where he had to learn English. He requalified and became a well-known QC and defended anti-apartheid militants at the Rivonia trial, in which Nelson Mandela was imprisoned. The Reichstag and Rivonia trials were two of the 20th century’s greatest court cases. The grandson is now reporting on extremist right-wingers in Athens.
 
Greece remains weak, if resilient, and urgently needs more of its debt written off. Unemployment is at record levels and tensions are high. Yet we prefer to keep entire nations in a kind of debtors’ prison. It’s not so much 1930s politics but the return of 19thcentury economics that is worrying.
 

Milk moustache

 
Back from my parents’ home near Athens to chilly Clapham. I spent most of my holiday in front of a computer at the wonderfully named Everyday Café in Varkiza, a seaside suburb outside Athens. My chief writing aids were countless café frappés – a glamorous name given to Nescafé mixed with cold water from the fridge and ice cubes, shaken like a cocktail until a thick layer of froth comes out on top and then poured into a tall glass.
 
It looks like a pint of Guinness but it’s spoiled by how you have to drink it through a straw – unless you don’t mind the ignominy of having a thick layer of froth settling around your mouth like a moustache.
 
Vicky Pryce is a former joint head of the Government Economic Service. Her books “Prisonomics” (£16.99) and an updated edition of “Greekonomics” (£12.99) will be published by Biteback later this month 
UKIP party posters for a local election. Image: Getty

This article first appeared in the 16 September 2013 issue of the New Statesman, Syria: The deadly stalemate

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

In focusing on the famous few, we risk doing a disservice to all victims of child sexual abuse

There is a danger that we make it harder, not easier, for victims to come forward in future. 

Back in the 1970s when relations between journalists and police were somewhat different to today a simple ritual would be carried out around the country at various times throughout the week.

Reporters, eager for information for their regional newspaper, would take a trip to the local station and there would be met by a desk sergeant who would helpfully skim through details in the crime Incident Book.

Among the entries about petty thefts, burglaries and road accidents there would occasionally be a reference to an allegation of incest. And at this point the sergeant and journalist might well screw-up their faces, shake their heads and swiftly move on to the next log. The subject was basically taboo, seen as something ‘a bit mucky,’ not what was wanted in a family newspaper.

And that’s really the way things stayed until 1986 when ChildLine was set up by Dame Esther Rantzen in the wake of a BBC programme about child abuse. For the first time children felt able to speak out about being sexually assaulted by the very adults whose role in life was to protect them.

And for the first time the picture became clear about what incest really meant in many cases. It wasn’t simply a low level crime to be swept under the carpet in case it scratched people’s sensitivities. It frequently involved children being abused by members of their close family, repeatedly, over many years.

Slowly but surely as the years rolled on the NSPCC continued to press the message about the prevalence of child sexual abuse, while encouraging victims to come forward. During this time the corrosive effects of this most insidious crime have been painfully detailed by many of those whose lives have been derailed by it. And of course the details of the hundreds of opportunistic sexual assaults committed by Jimmy Savile have been indelibly branded onto the nation’s consciousness.

It’s been a long road - particularly for those who were raped or otherwise abused as children and are now well into their later years - to bring society around to accepting that this is not to be treated as a dark secret that we really don’t want to expose to daylight. Many of those who called our helpline during the early days of the Savile investigation had never told anyone about the traumatic events of their childhoods despite the fact they had reached retirement age.

So, having buried the taboo, we seem to be in danger of giving it the kiss of life with the way some cases of alleged abuse are now being perceived.

It’s quite right that all claims of sexual assault should be investigated, tested and, where there is a case, pursued through the judicial system. No one is above the law, whether a ‘celebrity’ or a lord.

But we seem to have lost a sense of perspective when it comes to these crimes with vast resources being allocated to a handful of cases while many thousands of reported incidents are virtually on hold.

The police should never have to apologise for investigating crimes and following leads. However, if allegations are false or cannot be substantiated they should say so. This would be a strength not a weakness.

It is, of course, difficult that in many of the high-profile cases of recent times the identities of those under investigation have not been officially released by the police but have come to light through other means. Yet we have to deal with the world as it is not as we wish it would be and once names are common knowledge the results of the investigations centring on them should be made public.

When it emerges that someone in the public eye is being investigated for non-recent child abuse it obviously stirs the interest of the media whose appetite can be insatiable. This puts pressure on the police who don’t want to repeat the mistakes of the past by allowing offenders to slip through their hands.  And so there is a danger, as has been seen in recent cases, that officers lack confidence in declaring there is a lack of evidence or the allegations are not true. 

The disproportionate weight of media attention given to say, Sir Edward Heath, as opposed to the Bradford grooming gang sentenced this week, shows there is a danger the pendulum is swinging too far the other way. This threatens the painstaking work invested in ensuring the public and our institutions recognise child abuse as a very real danger. 

Whilst high profile cases have helped the cause there is now a real risk that the all-encompassing focus on them does both victims of abuse and those advocating on their behalf a fundamental disservice.

As the public watches high -profile cases collapsing amidst a media fanfare genuine convictions made across the country week in week out go virtually unannounced. If this trend continues they may start to believe that child sexual abuse isn’t the prolific problem we know it to be.

So, while detectives peer into the mists of time, searching for long lost clues, we have to face the unpalatable possibility that offences being committed today will in turn become historical investigations because there is not the manpower to deal with them right now.

So, now the Goddard Inquiry is in full swing, taking evidence about allegations of child sex crimes involving ‘well known people’ as well as institutional abuse, how do we ensure we don’t fail today’s victims?

If they start to think their stories are going to be diminished by the continuing furore over how some senior public figures have been treated by the police they will stay silent. Therefore we have to continue to encourage them to come forward, to give them the confidence of knowing they will be listened to.

If we don’t we will find ourselves back in those incestuous days where people conspired to say and do nothing to prevent child abuse.

Peter Wanless is Chief Executive of the NSPCC.