Show Hide image

Promoted by Janus Henderson

Europe: as the politics subside

How long can a resurgence of investor interest in Europe last?

Might Europe be the place to be?

I think European equities tick a lot of the right boxes right now. Economies are recovering – indeed the first quarter of 2017 saw Europe once more grow faster than the US, having outpaced the world’s largest economy in 2016. Valuations are not excessive, either relative to the region’s history or the US equity market. Like almost anything, I believe European equities also look compelling relative to bonds. The final part of the jigsaw puzzle might have been earnings growth, but here too Europe is, at last, getting close to achieving a gold star.

Most of this has been known for quite a few months now and is part of the explanation for the better performance of Europe year to date. Even the euro has strengthened against the US dollar, from about $1.05 at the start of 2017 to $1.12 at the time of writing. Politics looks more settled, after the surprises of the Brexit vote last year in the UK and the election of Donald Trump in the US Presidential election. Perhaps a comment I made at the beginning of 2017, that “by the end of 2017 the UK and the US might look to have been the exceptions” when it comes to successful populist votes, seems more prescient.

Now that the political backdrop is perhaps more settled, with the UK’s potentially tragic Brexit decision an exception, how long can a resurgence of interest in Europe last? One threat is the gradual move towards ‘tapering’ by the European Central Bank (ECB) of its unprecedented quantitative easing program, and the support this provides economies by injecting cash to drive down the cost of borrowing and increase consumer and business spending. But it is already clear that this will be a very slow process. The economic recovery in Europe remains quite slow and inflation, outside the UK, is well below the ECB’s target of ‘below or close to’ 2%. At the same time, the damaging effect of negative interest rates needs to be avoided.


What could derail this market?

The one exception to what looks to be a relatively rosy scenario, in my view, remains the UK. The Brexit ball is rolling onwards, following the invocation of the now infamous Article 50, but the calling of a General Election was another distraction. The UK is still no closer to knowing what sort of Brexit is desirable, or more likely, economically feasible. Once the reality of debt, demographics and a weak currency become clear, I suspect that the UK market will continue to struggle against other European peers.

Elsewhere in Europe, economies look well set, and I suspect that more capital spending and investment are likely to be incentivised with tax cuts in Europe, again outside the UK. In this scenario, those capital investment-related names such as Siemens, Legrand and Atlas Copco should continue to do well. Luxury names, and auto makers, many of which have rallied hard so far in 2017, are likely to struggle due to subdued consumer demand. Financials have also seen mixed performance so far, with insurance underperforming banks. This seems an anomaly given the paramount importance of long-term savings to cater for retirement.

It would be entirely healthy for European markets to drift through what will hopefully be a quiet summer, without shocks such as Brexit to contend with. I think all seems well set though for European markets to trade higher than current levels by the end of 2017.

Before investing in an investment trust referred to in this document, you should satisfy yourself as to its suitability and the risks involved, you may wish to consult a financial adviser. The value of an investment and the income from it can fall as well as rise and you may not get back the amount originally invested. Nothing in this document is intended to or should be construed as advice. This document is not a recommendation to sell or purchase any investment. It does not form part of any contract for the sale or purchase of any investment. Issued in the UK by Henderson Investment Funds Limited (reg. no. 2678531), incorporated and registered in England and Wales with registered office at 201 Bishopsgate, London EC2M 3AE, is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority to provide investment products and services.

Show Hide image

Jeremy Corbyn supporters should stop excusing Labour’s anti-immigration drift

The Labour leader is a passionate defender of migrants’ rights – Brexit shouldn’t distract the new left movement from that.

Something strange is happening on the British left – a kind of deliberate collective amnesia. During the EU referendum, the overwhelming majority of the left backed Remain.

Contrary to a common myth, both Jeremy Corbyn and the movement behind him put their weight into a campaign that argued forcefully for internationalism, migrants’ rights and regulatory protections.

And yet now, as Labour’s policy on Brexit hardens, swathes of the left appear to be embracing Lexit, and a set of arguments which they would have laughed off stage barely a year ago.

The example of free movement is glaring and obvious, but worth rehashing. When Labour went into the 2017 general election promising to end free movement with the EU, it did so with a wider election campaign whose tone was more pro-migrant than any before it.

Nonetheless, the policy itself, along with restricting migrants’ access to public funds, stood in a long tradition of Labour triangulating to the right on immigration for electorally calculated reasons. When Ed Miliband promised “tough controls on immigration”, the left rightly attacked him.  

The result of this contradiction is that those on the left who want to agree unequivocally with the leadership must find left-wing reasons for doing so. And so, activists who have spent years declaring their solidarity with migrants and calling for a borderless world can now be found contemplating ways for the biggest expansion of border controls in recent British history – which is what the end of free movement would mean – to seem progressive, or like an opportunity.

The idea that giving ground to migrant-bashing narratives or being harsher on Poles might make life easier for non-EU migrants was rightly dismissed by most left-wing activists during the referendum.

Now, some are going quiet or altering course.

On the Single Market, too, neo-Lexit is making a comeback. Having argued passionately in favour of membership, both the Labour leadership and a wider layer of its supporters now argue – to some extent or another – that only by leaving the Single Market could Labour implement a manifesto.

This is simply wrong: there is very little in Labour’s manifesto that does not have an already-existing precedent in continental Europe. In fact, the levers of the EU are a key tool for clamping down on the power of big capital.

In recent speeches, Corbyn has spoken about the Posted Workers’ Directive – but this accounts for about 0.17 per cent of the workforce, and is about to be radically reformed by the European Parliament.

The dangers of this position are serious. If Labour’s leadership takes the path of least resistance on immigration policy and international integration, and its support base rationalises these compromises uncritically, then the logic of the Brexit vote – its borders, its affirmation of anti-migrant narratives, its rising nationalist sentiment – will be mainlined into Labour Party policy.

Socialism in One Country and a return to the nation state cannot work for the left, but they are being championed by the neo-Lexiteers. In one widely shared blogpost on Novara Media, one commentator even goes as far as alluding to Britain’s Road to Socialism – the official programme of the orthodox Communist Party.

The muted and supportive reaction of Labour’s left to the leadership’s compromises on migration and Brexit owes much to the inept positioning of the Labour right. Centrists may gain personal profile and factional capital when the weaponising the issue, but the consequences have been dire.

Around 80 per cent of Labour members still want a second referendum, and making himself the “stop Brexit” candidate could in a parallel universe have been Owen Smith’s path to victory in the second leadership election.

But it meant that in the summer of 2016, when the mass base of Corbynism hardened its factional resolve, it did so under siege not just from rebelling MPs, but from the “Remoaners” as well.

At every juncture, the strategy of the centrist Labour and media establishment has made Brexit more likely. Every time a veteran of the New Labour era – many of whom have appalling records on, for instance, migrants’ rights – tells Labour members to fight Brexit, party members run a mile.

If Tony Blair’s messiah complex was accurate, he would have saved us all a long time ago – by shutting up and going away. The atmosphere of subterfuge and siege from MPs and the liberal press has, by necessity, created a culture of loyalty and intellectual conformity on the left.

But with its position in the party unassailable, and a radical Labour government within touching distance of Downing Street, the last thing the Labour leadership now needs is a wave of Corbynite loyalty-hipsters hailing its every word.

As the history of every attempt to form a radical government shows, what we desperately need is a movement with its own internal democratic life, and an activist army that can push its leaders as well as deliver leaflets for them.

Lexit is no more possible now than it was during the EU referendum, and the support base of the Labour left and the wider party is overwhelmingly in favour of free movement and EU membership.

Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and Diane Abbott are passionate, principled advocates for migrants’ rights and internationalism. By showing leadership, Labour can once again change what is electorally possible.