Category Archives: economy

Uphill struggle

Final Prime Ministerial debate tonight, this time on the economy.

The crisis in Greece and its knock-on effect throughout the Eurozone will inevitably overshadow the event.

The Liberal Democrats’ manifesto has this to say on the Euro:

We believe that it is in Britain’s long-term interest to be part of the euro.  But Britain should only join when the economic conditions are right, and in the present economic situation, they are not.

It will be fascinating to hear Mr Clegg explaining precisely why he considers it to be in our national interest to join the single currency and when he anticipates the time will be right to do so.

Rural ride

As I have previously blogged, this election campaign’s weather has been almost unbelievably pleasant, making it a joy for us to journey through the notably beautiful Clwyd West landscape.

Yesterday was probably the finest we have had so far, with the Land Rover’s thermometer hovering just below 20°C.  We campaigned in Ruthin, followed by the villages of Llanbedr, Llanfihangel Glyn Myfyr, Cerrigydrudion, Glasfryn and Pentrefoelas.  We then tracked back to Colwyn Bay across the Denbigh moors, stopping in Gwytherin en route.  It was a grand tour of matchless beauty.

There was, however, a touch of bleakness beneath the surface.  In Cerrigydrudion, the butcher’s shop had closed.  Petrol was retailing at 129.9p per litre.  There was a sign on the facade of the famous White Lion announcing that its tenancy was available.  The pub – the only one left in the village – had briefly closed, but was now apparently operated by a manager.

A man came up to me and asked if I could help revive the daily bus service, which had not operated for several months.  He couldn’t afford to run a car and was unable to find work because he was  now unable to travel out of the village.  He was, he said, very demoralised.

The rural areas of this country have been arguably even more severely affected than our towns and cities during this long, deep and bitter recession.  For many, life in the countryside is becoming progressively more difficult.  This has to change; but change is unlikely under a Labour government whose history, outlook and mindset are firmly and immutably urban.

Gordon’s luck

Gordon Brown’s notoriously bad luck manifested itself again today.  On the morning that the PM might have hoped to reap some modest cheer at the formal announcement of the end of the recession with news of 0.1 per cent growth in the last quarter of 2009, a Californian gentleman named Bill Gross went and burst his bubble.

Mr Gross is the founder and chief investment officer of Pimco, the world’s biggest bonds-based fund managers.  When he speaks, it matters, and his assessment of the prospects of the British economy is bleak indeed:

“The UK is a must to avoid. Its gilts are resting on a bed of nitroglycerine.

“High debt with the potential to devalue its currency present high risks for bond investors.

“In addition, its interest rates are already artificially influenced by accounting standards that at one point last year produced long-term real interest rates of 0.5 per cent and lower.”

No cheer there for the Prime Minister and, to make matters worse, it turns out that Pimco’s European operation is headed by Andrew Balls, the brother of the PM’s only remaining significant cabinet ally, Ed.

Gordon was absent from PMQs today, stuck in the Northern Ireland talks.  Given what he would have faced in the Commons, however, he may have found in  Belfast a blessed sanctuary.

The ghost of Gordon Brown

Nothing could underline more vividly the political irrelevance of Gordon Brown than this morning’s economic news.

Inflation has jumped from 1.9 per cent in November to 2.9 in December – the largest rise on record.  Mervyn King has warned that it may rise above 3 per cent, and that the patience of Britons will be “sorely tried”, with stagnant pay levels causing a real-terms decline in living standards.

Meanwhile, Fitch, the credit ratings agency, says that Government plans to halve the deficit in four years are too timid and that it is looking for more positive proposals to cut spending, failing which the UK’s triple-A credit rating will be threatened.

Peter Mandelson understands that there must be deep cuts in expenditure: he has warned that Britain and Europe face a period of “rapid relative economic decline” if governments fail to reduce spending.

Alistair Darling realises that, too: he is to propose spending reductions of around 17 per cent in areas outside health, policing and international aid.

And all the while, Downing Street is haunted by the poor, deluded ghost of a Prime Minister, still gibbering distractedly about “Labour investment” while the real world gets on with real life.

Kicking the coping classes

The pre-Budget report was delivered by Alistair Darling in his customary hypnotic monotone.  Darling is now such a master of mind-numbingly boring declamation that you almost fail to appreciate how truly awful is the state of the British economy:

Because of the severity of the recession, my forecast for this year’s borrowing is £178 billion. Next year it will fall to £176 billion. As the economy recovers and the deficit reduction plan starts to take effect, it will fall to £140 billion and then to £117 billion, and will reach £96 billion in 2013–14—a slightly lower level than I forecast in April—before falling to £82 billion in 2014–15. As a share of GDP, borrowing will be 12.6 per cent. this year, 12 per cent. next year, then 9.1 per cent, then 7.1 per cent., and 5.5 per cent. in 2013–14. It will fall to 4.4 per cent. in 2014–15. If we exclude public sector investment, or capital spending, and take the economic cycle into account, the budget deficit is expected to fall to 1.9 per cent. at the end of the forecast period.

And so it went on, one grim statistic after another. 

The eye-catching measures – well trailed – were the windfall tax on bankers’ bonuses and the freezing of inheritance tax thresholds, all part of Labour’s core vote strategy of being seen to punish the City fat cats and the landed toffs.

Yet drill down in the PBR and you will see that the real targets of Labour’s attack are the middle-income coping classes.  In 2011, national insurance contributions of both employers and employees earning over £20,000 will be increased by a further 0.5 per cent – a tax both on jobs and on moderate earners.

Labour’s tax increases amount in total to about £7.8 billion, or £370 per annum more per family – all postponed, of course, until after the general election. 

So today’s PBR was indeed a declaration of war.  But, so far as Labour are concerned, the real enemy are the aspirational middle classes.  New Labour really is dead.

Good news costs money

It appears increasingly likely that many more online news sites will move to a paid-for model in 2010.  There has been considerable pressure in that direction for some time, most notably from News Corporation’s Rupert Murdoch, who has already introduced subscription charges for the Wall Street Journal and is expected to follow suit with the Times next year. 

That move is likely to be facilitated by yesterday’s announcement by Google, often criticised by Murdoch for its free “news aggregating” service, that it will allow online publishers to limit access to their content through a program called First Click Free, which will prompt users to register or subscribe to the news provider’s site after reading five articles in a day.

However, having apparently won the battle against Google, Murdoch now faces attack on another front, this time from Lord Mandelson, who, opening the debate yesterday on the second reading of the Digital Economy Bill, told the Lords:

There are some in the commercial sector who believe that the future of British media would be served by cutting back the role of the media regulator. They take this view because they want to commandeer more space and income for themselves and because they want to maintain their iron grip on pay-tv—a market in which many viewers feel they are paying more than they should for their movies and their sport. They also want to erode the commitment to impartiality—in other words, to fill British airwaves with more Fox-style news. They believe that profit alone should drive the gathering and circulation of news rather than allowing a role for what they call “state-sponsored journalism”.

The difficulty is that, without profit, many news providers – especially smaller ones – will die and, indeed, are already dying.  Only two months ago, the Neath Guardian, a Trinity Mirror title, closed after a disastrous collapse in circulation.  Across Britain, many other local newspapers are struggling.

Larger publishers are struggling, too.  Speaking this week at the World Newspaper Congress in Hyderabad, Chris Elliott, managing editor of the Guardian, announced plans to cut 70 to 100 journalist posts.  “We have to get on with doing the best we can with the resources we have,” he said.

The digital revolution has undoubtedly hit traditional newspapers hard, with readers increasingly accessing their content online free of charge.  In the long term, this must surely be unsustainable, a hard fact apparently recognised earlier this week by the Johnston Press when it announced that it would start charging for online access to six of its titles; the experiment will be watched with great  interest by the entire British newspaper industry.

Earlier this week, Rupert Murdoch told the Reuters Global Media Summit in Washington that:

“Good journalism is an expensive commodity. We need to do a better job of persuading consumers that high-quality news and information does not come free.”

Murdoch in this respect is quite right.  A diverse press, online or otherwise, is essential to a healthy democracy.  We may not like it, but if we want continued access to good journalism that is not provided by the BBC, we had better get used to paying for it.

International dominoes

The news yesterday that the state-controlled Dubai World Corporation may be unable to meet its interest commitments has had enormous repercussions.  The FTSE sustained its biggest one day fall for over eight months and billions were wiped off the values of HSBC and Standard Chartered, the two British banks with the greatest exposure to the Gulf state.

Yesterday’s events followed unnervingly hard on the heels of the warning earlier this week by the IMF’s managing director, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, that half of banks’ toxic assets remain to be revealed.  The Dubai episode raises the spectre of entire states, rather than corporations, defaulting:  already, investors in countries such as Greece, Russia and Mexico are seeing the cost of insurance against default rocketing.

All this has severe implications for the United Kingdom. Last month, there were concerns that the credit ratings agency, Moody’s, was considering downgrading the UK’s triple-A status.  The Dubai experience may cause those concerns to reappear.   Ken Clarke referred to the consequences in his wind-up yesterday:

Foreigners will eventually have to finance the debt. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster explained clearly, with the level of debt being run up by other developed countries, we have to persuade people to have confidence in this country to buy sterling-denominated assets and to finance our debt at an affordable price. Several Members warned about the rising level of debt interest as part of the public debt. Of course, as interest rates are brought back to a more normal level, if we are driven to higher interest rates because we have to sell our gilts and have to get somebody to accept the risk of financing our debt, we will find our economy slowed down by rising interest rates and the cost of servicing the debt will go up, perhaps leading us into a debt trap.

The problem is that, because of the imminence of the general election, the Government – or, to be more precise, Gordon Brown himself  – remains reluctant to admit the full scale of the appalling economic difficulties that the country faces; it maintains the palpably ludicrous fiction that Britain’s structural deficit can be brought under control simply by legislating it away.  Its stance is reactive, rather than proactive, and increasingly divorced from reality.

And that is a stance that will cause huge dangers for this country at a time when whole nations, rather than corporations, start to fall like dominoes.

Insulted by Ken

Spoke this evening in the debate on the economy – the final stage in the wider debate on the Queen’s Speech – and focused on the appalling damage being done to the construction industry in North Wales and the lack of effective Government support for the sector.

Ken Clarke wound up for the Opposition – apparently, his first wind-up for some 20 years.  He was both hugely entertaining and forensically destructive of the Government’s position.  His closing remarks were as follows:

I am a great fan of Benjamin Disraeli, and I looked up a passage that I often quote slightly inaccurately. Denouncing the dying Government of Mr. Gladstone in the early 1870s, Disraeli—he was about my age then, and sustained himself with a very large amount of liquor while making his three-hour speech in Manchester; only water is sustaining me—used a very grand phrase. He said:

“The ministers remind me of one of those marine landscapes not very unusual on the coast of South America. You behold a range of exhausted volcanoes. Not a flame flickers on a single pallid crest.”

That quotation is not really suitable for today’s debate, however. These Ministers could not be described as volcanoes. They were merely foothills when they started. The Queen’s Speech shows that they are finished, and it is a pity that they go out on such a low note.

The replying Minister, Pat McFadden, rose to his feet to cries of: “Follow that!”   He had a broad grin on his usually funereal countenance, as if he deemed it a great privilege to be insulted by Ken.

Which, thinking about it, it probably was.

Sweet advice

I’m sure that yesterday’s outburst by Alan Sugar, the Government’s new “enterprise champion”, will have gone down extraordinarily well with the business community.

Speaking at an event in Manchester, organised “to champion the causes of viable small companies with banks”, Lord Sugar said:

“Don’t just talk to me in inverted commas about ‘banks being horrible and nasty.’ Regretfully, when we delve into some examples of the companies that have gone to them saying ‘lend me some money’, I wouldn’t lend them one penny.

“They are bust. The moaners are bust. They are bust and they don’t need the bank — they need an insolvency practitioner.”

One might, of course, say much the same thing about many of the banks, which have been bailed out at such eye-watering cost by taxpayers,  including the “moaners”, who no doubt found Lord Sugar’s business advice extremely helpful.

Hostages to fortune

Gordon Brown informs us that the recession will be over in Britain by Christmas.  We must all hope devoutly that he is right.

However, given the wild inaccuracy of his predictions to date, it is reasonable to suppose that there is a strong possibility that he will be proved wrong yet again.

The question why the Prime Minister feels constantly compelled to give such hostages to fortune is an interesting one.  Either he is, despite the evidence of experience, still convinced of the infallibility of his own judgment, or he has now arrived at the point of desperation where he really doesn’t care.

Either way, we would all have cause to be profoundly disturbed if we were to think about it for any length of time.

Can’t afford any more of Gordon

gordonbrownThe British economy continues on its grim downward trajectory:  ONS figures released today show that it contracted by 0.4 per cent in the last quarter, the sixth consecutive fall, meaning that this is the longest and deepest recession since records began in 1955.  Sterling closed this evening down 2.4 cents against the dollar at $1.6338, and off 1.7 cents against the euro at €1.0878.

The Government’s economic projections have been shown to be hopelessly inaccurate; in the pre-Budget report last November, Alistair Darling predicted:

I, too, am forecasting that output will continue to fall in the UK for the first two quarters of next year. But then, because of decisions taken in this pre-Budget report, I expect it to start to recover, and GDP growth for 2009 is forecast to be between minus ¾ per cent and minus 1¼ per cent.

But the first, second and third quarters have now passed and the economy remains in deep recession, with little sign of pulling out in any hurry; this when Germany, France and Japan re-entered positive territory in the second quarter.

Gordon Brown has stubbornly persisted in asserting, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that his wise direction of the economy has left Britain best placed to weather the downturn.  Today’s figures demonstrate unequivocally that such is not the case and that, moreover, he really hasn’t a clue what to do about it.

Does he really intend to limp on like this for yet another six months?  Can’t he see that Britain simply can’t afford any more of him?

Sunny Gordon

In an interesting, not to say quixotic, attempt at repositioning, Gordon Brown, in an interview  in the Telegraph this morning, seeks to portray himself as a sunny optimist, in contrast to the doom-and-gloom mongers of the Conservative party.

It is “simply not true”, says Mr Brown, that tough economic times lie ahead.  No, says the PM, his drive for economic growth will pull the country out of recession; with Gordon at the helm, Labour are going to let the good times roll.

Gratifying as it is to see this hitherto unsuspected Louis Armstrong side to the Prime Minister’s personality, it is unlikely that his new line will cut much ice with an informed electorate.  The Treasury’s own figures indicate that:

  • the social security bill will mount to almost £200 billion in four years’ time – almost twice the NHS budget;
  • debt interest will rise to £63 billion per annum;
  • the total cost of welfare and debt maintenance will amount to one-third of government expenditure.

In the circumstances, it’s rather hard to see that the Tories are being anything other than totally realistic when they warn of hard years to come.   Giving a cheery whistle, as Gordon appears to be advising, isn’t really going to help an awful lot.

Mandelson’s optical illusion

MandelsonPeter Mandelson has given an interview to the Economist in which he asserts that what was thought to be a U-turn by Gordon Brown over spending   is, in fact, nothing of the sort; it is simply a change of “optics”. 

The interview is a development of the theme launched by Mandelson in his Progress speech last week, in which he sought to present Labour as a party of “wise spenders, not big spenders”, who did not believe that you could solve problems “simply by throwing money at them”.

It had never been Labour’s plan, you see, to maintain spending at its former stratospheric levels; it was always intended that it would be reduced.  And that is what is happening now.

But what about Gordon’s  stance of “Tory cuts versus Labour investment”?  Hasn’t he abandoned that?  

Good heavens, no.  Allow Lord Mandelson to explain:

“[It is the Prime Minister’s] firm belief that we need to maintain investment and spending rather than adopt the cuts the Conservatives are advocating.

“But he is equally making clear – and did so before, during and since the budget – that we need to bring down the deficit.”

You may think that, actually, it’s not all that clear.  You may even think that those two statements look like mutually-contradictory hogwash.  But that is where the “optics” come in. 

Because Mandelson is referring not, as you may think, to devices for dispensing the copious slugs of the hard stuff that you will need before you can be persuaded to believe such monumental baloney, but rather to political prisms to enable you properly to perceive the elegance of Labour’s carefully crafted and wholly consistent economic masterplan.

Yes, concedes Mandelson, there has indeed been some confusion over Labour’s spending proposals.  But that is not the fault of Gordon Brown, but that of journalists, who are “not making the truthful distinction between what the Prime Minister is saying is necessary now and what he believes we should do over the medium term.”

So I hope that’s all absolutely clear to you now. 

But if it’s not, and you’re still confused, perhaps you should try polishing your optics.

Too late for Barry Sheerman

Today’s ICM poll for the Guardian will make generally bleak reading for the Labour party; however, the single indicator that will cause its strategists the most concern is that only 14 per cent of those polled believe that the party is telling the truth about the country’s financial position.

This is unsurprising, given the Prime Minister’s humiliating, cack-handed flip-flop over spending cuts and the revelation that whilst he was accusing the Tories of planning 10 per cent cuts across the board, he had already received advice from the Treasury that he would himself have to make similar cuts if his aim of halving the deficit by 2014 were to be achieved.  Loss of confidence on financial matters is, of course, usually fatal to a government.

The collapse in support for Labour must be attributed in large measure, though by no means wholly, to the personal ineptitude of the Prime Minister; indeed, whilst the party as a whole has a low favourability rating of 31 per cent, Brown’s personal rating is even lower, at 28 per cent.

With the spotlight on Labour at its conference next weekend, there will undoubtedly be further calls from some quarters to drop the pilot, even at this late stage; step forward, Barry Sheerman.

Given the electoral timetable, however, it is now probably too late.  Labour MPs who lacked the courage to dump the PM after the Euro elections will now undoubtedly be cursing their own indecisiveness.

Using the c-word won’t help

gordon_brownGordon Brown will today use the c-word for the first time in public.

Speaking to the TUC in Liverpool, the Prime Minister will admit that Labour’s aim of reducing the budgetary deficit within four years cannot be achieved solely through efficiency savings and asset sales.  There will also have to be cuts.

Labour strategists recognise that the Prime Minister’s hitherto stubborn refusal to speak of reductions in public spending is causing further damage to the party’s credibility; voters have accepted for some time that spending cuts are not only  inevitable but desirable, and a poll in today’s Times suggests that they trust the Conservatives more than Labour to deliver those cuts in such a way as not to damage public services.

 Labour therefore urgently need to play catch-up and Brown’s acknowledgment, in the particularly hostile arena of the TUC, that cuts are necessary will amount to a deck-clearing exercise, allowing the argument to move on to priorities and away from dogma.  The speech will be so symbolically important that its precise wording was still being worked on last night.

Peter Mandelson, in the meantime, was yesterday preparing the way for Brown’s epiphany in a speech of his own at the LSE.  Addressing the Progress campaign group, Mandelson sought to reposition Labour as a party of “insurgents, not incumbents”, committed to the reform of public services through carefully targeted spending:

Our 1997 manifesto described the New Labour approach as being “wise spenders, not big spenders”. This is and remains a core New Labour principle. We do not believe that we should try to solve problems simply by throwing money at them. We need to be: “effective state” social democrats, not “big state” social democrats.

Mandelson’s difficulty, however, is that such an assertion is wholly belied by  the experience of twelve years of Labour in power, which have seen state spending mushroom to fifty per cent of GDP.  Labour’s approach to problems and non-problems alike has indeed been to throw money at them; voters simply won’t believe Mandelson when he declares that the party that fed and nurtured the bloated state for over a decade is now austerely wedded to the principle of delivering the most bang for the buck.

It’s far too late for such a conversion, as Gordon Brown, too, will discover once he has finally brought himself to utter the c-word in Liverpool later today.