Category Archives: economy

Brown: still stuck in the old politics

Gordon-BrownIn a particularly intelligent article in today’s Telegraph, Frank Field declares that the forthcoming general election will be wholly different from all other post-war elections, in that the parties will be judged on their proposals to cut the public deficit, and not on how they plan to “bribe voters with their own money”.

Pointing out that the recession has destroyed five per cent of our national wealth, Field observes that, even when the economy is growing again, there will be a monstrous gap of £80 billion between revenue and expenditure by 2013. 

So the rules of the game have changed, says Field:

Here is the basis of the next decade’s politics. Whoever wins the election will have to plan to hand over an increasing share of our national wealth, first to meet interest payments, and then to repay the debt itself. These transfer payments will cut our country’s living standards.

Hence the importance of spelling out the nature of those public expenditure cuts. The sooner they start, the lower the long-term interest rates, and the smaller the amount of our future income that will have to be impounded for debt repayment.

Field’s analysis is correct; furthermore, evidence of growing public support for expenditure cuts appears in today’s Times, which carries details of a YouGov poll’s findings that, by a majority of almost three to one, voters support cuts in public spending, rather than increased taxation, as the preferred means to address the deficit.

Alistair Darling, too, understands  that the rules have changed; in his speech in Cardiff this week, the Chancellor confirmed that his pre-Budget report will contain measures to reduce the deficit and went on to say:

Public spending is not a goal in itself.  What matters is the results, what you get with your money – and how they help people meet their aspirations and ease their concerns.

The first priority has to be to look for areas where we can achieve greater efficiency. Some seem in a hurry to cut services. We are focussing on cutting costs.

So what the electorate will wish to know in the approach to the next election will be: how do the two principal parties propose to cut the deficit and restore budgetary rectitude?  David Cameron and George Osborne know that;  Alistair Darling has shown that he now gets it, too.

Sadly, however, Gordon Brown still doesn’t get it; in his speech to the TUC on Tuesday, the Prime Minister is likely to repeat the familiar fiction that yet further “investment” – his favoured euphemism for borrowing – is the only way to ride out the recession.

In doing so, the Prime Minister will demonstrate beyond doubt that he is still in the old business of seeking to bribe voters with money the country hasn’t got.  But voters, if the YouGov poll is anything to go by, have decisively rejected that approach. 

They, also, understand the new politics; Gordon Brown doesn’t.

Gordon makes it clear

In a speech in Cardiff today, Alistair Darling acknowledged that the NHS will not be immune from spending cuts.

During the course of his speech, the Chancellor said that the Government was determined “never to risk the fiscal sustainability of our economy” and continued:

“This will mean, as Gordon Brown and I have already made clear, hard choices on public spending.”

Could someone please remind me precisely when it was that Gordon “Tory cuts v Labour investment” Brown provided the degree of clarity asserted by Mr Darling?

Gordon surrenders on spending

Brown surrender

Looks like Gordon Brown  has run up the white flag on spending.

Liam Byrne, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has today announced that the pre-Budget report will outline plans to halve the Government’s spending deficit over four years.

Byrne says that this can be done while at the same time protecting public services:

“In the Pre-Budget Report we will set out in more detail how we will halve the deficit over four years and protect those public services which we think are key to helping people make the most of the future in this country.”

Evidently, those public services that are not considered “key” will not be protected.

So bang goes the famous Brownian dividing line of “Tory cuts v Labour investment”.   Watching Gordon attempting to explain that one away will be hugely entertaining.

Wall-to-wall bad news

Wall-to-wall bad news on the economic front today.

The latest labour market figures show an increase in unemployment of 220,000 over the three months to the end of June, or 750,000 over a year.  Almost eight million people are now economically inactive.

Prospects for young people are particularly worrying; almost one million individuals under 24 are now without work.

At the same time, the Bank of England’s Mervyn King  has reported that the downturn is likely to be deep and long-lasting, although there has been some slightly recovery of confidence since the depth of last autumn’s economic collapse:

“The recession appears to be deeper than the MPC thought likely at the time of the May report …nominal indicators remain weak and the adjustment of balance sheets has a long way to run.”

A report by the Audit Commission, also published today, warns that the downturn will put increasingly heavy strains on local government;  demand for benefits, welfare and help with debt are growing, and social problems such as domestic violence and mental ill-health are expected to follow as the recession deepens.

Everyone I speak to is deeply concerned, and with good reason.  At such a worrying time, the least that politicians of all parties can and should do is to level with the electorate and treat them as adults.   

One of the few positive messages that emerged from Peter Mandelson’s bad-tempered interview with Evan Davis this morning is that he, at least, accepts the full, enormous scale of the economic difficulties this country faces; unfortunately, I am far from certain that this is yet acknowledged by the Prime Minister, who still has very much the appearance of a man in denial.

Fun with figures

The Office for National Statistics reports that the net national asset value of the United Kingdom has fallen to £6.95 trillion, a decline of 2 per cent from the previous year and the first fall in national wealth since 1992.

When contemplating that figure, it is worth considering also that the total cost to the country, in terms of advances and guarantees, of saving the British banking system from collapse amounts to £1.3 trillion, or almost 19 per cent of the net national wealth.

If that’s not a troubling statistic, I don’t know what is.

Broken teeth – faded smile

The continuing impact of the recession, and the fact that there is unlikely to be a fast route to recovery, is illustrated in a report published yesterday by the Local Data Company, a leading supplier of retail sector data.

The report, entitled Broken teeth – faded smile, reveals that around 12,000 independent shops and 7,000 branches of major chains have closed so far this year.  The average retail vacancy rate across Britain has increased from 4 per cent twelve months ago to almost 12 per cent today.

Of the 800 Woolworths branches that closed last winter, only about 200 have been sold, leaving large gaps in the prime retail pitches of town centres throughout the country.  Of those that have been sold, many have been acquired by “pound shop” retailers, generally driving down the overall quality of the retail sector.

The report summarises the significance of its findings succinctly:

Economically, there are few sadder sites than an empty shop. Just as thriving town centres demonstrate vitality, empty shops lay bare weakness and failure…  Empty shops have a corrosive effect upon the confidence of any area – and their numbers are growing.

Empty shops are the most visible indicator of the fragility of the economy.  The report observes that, although there are also some optimistic indicators, longer-term prospects are far from certain:

A heat wave and a new round of sales brought shoppers out in June. An increase in retail sales volume of 2.9% over June 2008, the largest annual gain since December, was way above expectations and could set the scene for a stronger than expected second half of the year. However this has to be balanced against continued rises in unemployment and therefore less spending power overall.

Pressure on the High Street will  continue as a consequence of  the growing popularity of online shopping, which, despite the downturn,  is growing at an annual rate of over 12 per cent.   

One must, therefore, wonder whether there will ever be a complete recovery for the traditional retail sector in this country, in which case one of the challenges for government may be to reassess the uses to which we put our town centres. 

Brown’s reassurance

Prime Minister’s Questions again and David Cameron continued his attack on Labour’s public spending plans:

Mr. David Cameron (Witney) (Con): Last week, it was demonstrated for everyone to see that capital spending under Labour will be cut. Now I want to turn to total spending. Does the Prime Minister accept that his own figures show that once the Treasury’s forecast for inflation is taken into account, total spending will be cut after 2011?

The Prime Minister: No, total spending will continue to rise, and it will be a zero per cent. rise in 2013–14.

Thank heaven for that.  I’d be terribly concerned if I thought he was proposing a standstill budget.

Dishonest dividing line

A further example – possibly the starkest yet – of the depth and extent  of Britain’s economic crisis appears in today’s Telegraph.

Standard & Poors, the international ratings agency, has calculated that the country’s public sector debt could rocket from its current level of just over 50 per cent of GDP (a figure itself hotly disputed by some commentators) to well over 200 per cent by 2050, as a consequence of the “demographic time bomb” of an ageing population and the strain it places on public spending:

Moritz Kraemer, head of S&P’s sovereign ratings in Europe, Middle East and Africa, said Britain was facing a double challenge – first, to mend its books in the wake of the financial crisis and then to overhaul its economy drastically to stifle the pensions crisis. He said Britain was facing deficits unlike any before in peacetime history.

Kraemer makes it clear that the Government, whatever it political hue, will have to address the problem by, for instance, raising taxes, cutting pensions or reducing expenditure on healthcare.

Britain, uniquely among large developed Western economies, is already on S&P’s “negative outlook” list, meaning that the agency is considering stripping it of its AAA credit rating, an action that would have extremely serious consequences for the economy.

The article further highlights the need for Gordon Brown to acknowledge that urgent corrective action needs to be taken to start filling the black hole he has created through unfettered public borrowing. 

Sadly, for so long as Brown is committed to his ludicrous and dishonest political “dividing line” of “Labour investment v. Tory cuts”, the prospect of any such action being taken looks depressingly remote.

Blurring the line

hilarybennGordon Brown’s declared dividing line between the parties of “Tory cuts versus Labour investment” was further blurred by Hilary Benn on Radio 4’s Any Questions yesterday evening.

Benn acknowledged that his Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs would face future budgetary cuts and would have to make spending adjustments:

“If I look at my department’s budget, it is going to go down a bit and therefore we will have to prioritise.”

Mr Benn went on blithely to add that the Government faced “real choices” ahead and “when times are tough you need to tighten your belt”.

This will certainly cause extreme displeasure to the Prime Minister, whose strategy has already been undermined by Cabinet colleagues, most notably the Chancellor, who has steadfastly refused to play along with it.

At PMQs last Wednesday, David Cameron highlighted the tensions within the cabinet over the issue:

Mr. Cameron: Let us first of all be clear about the Prime Minister’s claims about Conservative policy. Even his own colleagues do not believe him. This is the report that we had from last week’s Cabinet:

“Darling pointed out that Brown’s Tory cut figures did not represent the”—

Conservative—

“party’s policy but were merely extrapolations”—

[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] It gets more interesting:

“Cooper, previously the Treasury minister responsible for public spending, echoed his concerns”,

and:

“According to one source who was present, Brown was visibly irritated at the way he had been undermined, and brought the meeting to an early close”.

He says that he wants to be a teacher, but it sounds like he has lost control of the classroom.

Looks like it’s now poor Hilary Benn’s turn to stand in the corner.

Brown’s really bad day

BillHaleyToday, even by his own standards,  has been an extraordinarily  bad one for the Prime Minister.

At PMQs he was savaged almost to destruction by David Cameron, who accused him of giving the House inaccurate information last week about capital expenditure growth between now and 2012.   Far from increasing, as Brown had contended, expenditure would actually fall after 2009 – 2010.

Brown, in replying, became angry –  no, furious –  and almost incoherent.  Embarrassingly, his hair became dishevelled and formed a Bill Haley–style kiss curl in the middle of his forehead.   He looked awful and very isolated,  his backbenchers sitting  ominously silent.

Later in the day, before the Treasury select committee, Mervyn King added to the PM’s woes by criticising the Government’s “unambitious” response to the need to reduce the alarming level of public borrowing:

“The scale of the deficit is truly extraordinary. 12.5% of GDP is not something that anybody would have anticipated even a year or two ago, and this reflects the scale of the global downturn.

“There will certainly need to be a plan for the lifetime of the next Parliament, contingent on the state of the economy, to show how those deficits will be brought down if the economy recovers to reach levels of deficits below those which were shown in the Budget figures.”

So, on the whole, an even worse than usual day for Gordon Brown. 

I wonder how many of those Labour MPs who pledged loyalty to him those two short weeks ago are now cursing themselves and their colleagues for their lack of resolve.

Scrap value

Peter Mandelson has urged voters to give the Government time to show that its Budget measures were the right decision for the country:

“Judge us by results, judge us on delivery, judge us by where we are in a year’s time and when you can look back and say ‘They took the right decisions, they were tough, they were responsible and they were fair’ and then see where we stand in a year’s time.”

The Institute for Fiscal Studies however, has already delivered its judgment on Mandelson’s flagship car scrappage scheme. It was politely but comprehensively shredded by Thomas Crossley, IFS programme director:

“This is not a strong environmental measure. While new cars have lower emissions per mile, they may be driven more and there are environmental costs associated with their production. As fiscal stimulus, this measure benefits one industry. Many new cars are not produced in Britain, though some foreign made vehicles will contain British components. A significant fraction of cars of this age are scrapped each year, so there is scope for a large part of the subsidy to go to replacements that would have occurred anyway. The measure should cause some households to bring forward a vehicle replacement. This will mean fewer sales later. The government hopes that this will occur after the economy has picked up.”

Which, if the IFS is correct, is likely to be some considerable way ahead.

Doesn’t add up

darlingThe Institute for Fiscal Studies, the country’s leading economic think tank, has comprehensively demolished Alistair Darling’s budget, less than 24 hours after its delivery.

The measures announced by Darling, says the IFS, will fill only half of the projected deficit of £90 billion by 2017 -2018; to address the deficit will cost every family £2,840 extra every year in additional taxes or public spending cuts.  Furthermore, it will take until 2032 before national debt falls below 40 per cent of national income, the level that Gordon Brown pledged not to breach in those long-lost days of prudence.

The full scale of the impact of the downturn on the economy was made clear by IFS director Robert Chote, a man not given to hyperbole, who said:

“Taking the PBR and Budget forecasts together, the Treasury’s assessment of the fiscal damage wrought by the current economic and financial crisis is breathtaking.

“Put simply, the Treasury forecasts now imply that the crisis has dealt a permanent hit to the Exchequer costing around 6.5 per cent of national income or £90 billion a year in today’s money – from a combination of lost tax revenues and higher social security costs.”

Coming, as it does, from a completely independent, hugely respected body, this criticism could scarcely be more damaging to the Government.  Brown and Darling have a £45 billion black hole in their budget, which will need to be filled by whichever party wins the next general election.

But that’s something Gordon and Alistair would prefer you not to think about, just now.

Pips squeaking

There was a time, not so long ago, when I used to feel quite sorry for Alistair Darling.  Here was a man who had acceded to one of the great offices of state, only to find that he was little more than a puppet, his strings pulled by the great puppet-master next door. 

His personal authority was virtually nil.  He was in office, but not in control of his powerful department.  That remained the fiefdom of its former incumbent.

However, over the months since Gordon’s anointment, it has become increasingly clear that Darling is now entirely reconciled to his surrogate status.  Indeed, he appears almost at peace with it, his demeanour being one of impassive,  Zen-like calm. 

Today, he stood at the dispatch box, utterly composed, reading out a list of figures so terrible, so thoroughly frightful, that they would have engendered the severest anxiety in anyone unable to achieve the state of nirvana that Alistair has attained:

Our own figures for public sector net borrowing will be £175 billion this year, or some 12 per cent. of GDP. From 2010, as the economy starts to recover, and the measures announced in November and today take effect, borrowing will fall to £173 billion, then £140 billion, £118 billion, and then £97 billion. As a share of GDP, our borrowing will be 11.9 per cent. of GDP next year, and then, as we move towards balance, 9.1 per cent. in 2011-12, then 7.2 per cent., and then 5.5 per cent. in 2013-14.

This was way, way beyond anything that anyone had anticipated, infinitely worse than the projections Darling announced only last November.  And, indeed, the rest of his speech was full of such appalling statistics that Members were left gasping.

There was, as I anticipated, something small for pensioners and, yes, some funny business with tax credits.  But there was little cheer for Labour.  No fiscal stimulus, because Mervyn King had put a stop to it.  Virtually no giveaways.  Just bad, bad news, for the country as a whole, and particularly for the Labour backbenchers. 

They sat mostly silent and unanimated, save for the briefest of visceral, tribal cheers when Darling announced the 50p tax rate on incomes over £150,000.  Harriet Harman’s face creased into a vindictive and incongruous smile at that point.

But she shouldn’t have been so pleased.  Her colleague had just confirmed that Labour had not abolished boom and bust and had broken a key election pledge.  The economy, it was now known beyond doubt, had been trashed by her own party: damaged so badly that it will take the best part of a generation to repair.  Jobs are disappearing by the thousand daily.  Businesses are folding.  Lives are being ruined.

And yet she, too, in her own strange way, was happy.  Alistair had just confirmed the death of New Labour.  Class warfare was reopened.  The red flag had been hoisted.  The pips would squeak again.

Softening up

Long gone are the days of budget purdah, when the Chancellor would cloister himself away for weeks on end prior to emerging from No 11 clutching his red box.   Ken Clarke brought an end to that tradition.

However, no budget in recent years has been more heavily trailed than this year’s, which is also the latest in recent memory.  You can read about it here and here and here.  And if you want to see the Chancellor making a brave pre-budget face of the downturn, you can view his viral YouTube video here.

All this authorised leaking has been done for one very good reason: you get the electorate used to the idea of bad news, rather than hit them with it on budget day.  So when Alistair Darling announces the £15 billion “efficiency savings” (not spending cuts, you understand), the £160 billion public sector borrowing, and the estimate of a decade to sort out the public finances, it won’t seem too bad.

Instead, attention will be focused (Labour hope) on the metaphorical rabbit Darling pulls out of the hat on budget day.  There’s bound to be one, at least; there always is.  Expect some apparent largesse for pensioners or some funny business with tax credits.

But remember what happened when Gordon Brown announced the 10p tax band in his 2007 budget.  Hailed as a triumph by his back benchers, who waved their order papers in immoderate glee, it was later shown to be an enormous con when the Red Book was examined.

That’s the way it is with Labour budgets; there is always a legion of devils in the detail. 

And this year, given the bombed-out state of the economy, it is likely that the Chancellor will be obliged to be even more creative than usual.

Tough times for pensioners

Last Saturday, in Llanrhaeadr, I chatted to a farmer and asked him how the trade was going.  He said it was pretty good; lamb prices were stronger than they had been for a long time.

“But the consumer isn’t going to like it,” he added.  “Food prices are going to carry on rising.”

He was absolutely right.  The British Retail Consortium (BRC) Neilsen Shop Price Index, published today, shows food inflation running at 9 per cent.  Annual non-food deflation, however, is running at -1.5 per cent.  The BRC’s Director General, Stephen Robertson, commented:

“The shop price of food is increasing because retailers are paying more for their supplies. The majority of food consumed in the UK is sourced here, but the weak pound is pushing up prices for domestic produce as it becomes more attractive to overseas buyers and it’s increasing the cost of imports. The pound has fallen by around a quarter since summer 2007.

“The good news for customers is food inflation is lower than its peak last year and non-food goods, such as clothing and electricals, are also still cheaper than they were a year ago.”

That good news, however, is less good for retired people, for whom food is proportionately a higher cost than for younger consumers, who are less likely to feel the benefit of falling mortgage rates and whose savings income has fallen dramatically over the last few months.

The downturn shows no signs of abating and, according to the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, may well continue for at least another two years

If a lengthy recession is accompanied, as is likely, by a continuing weak pound and low interest rates, life is likely to be tough for Britain’s pensioners.