Loading... Please wait...

Politics 1, Economic Prosperity 0

By Chris Rumiftt / @dispatchblogRowson

Cartoon: Martin Rowson, The Guardian

If the budget, with its confirmation of the deep financial morass we now find ourselves in, were not gloomy enough, the reaction of the commentariat in today's newspapers makes for even more depressing reading for anyone who cares about the future of the country (rather than political point scoring) and is seeking to understand a way out of this terrible, unholy mess.

What is so depressing is that both sides of the political debate seem to be taking unedifying joy in the contents of yesterday's Budget. The right are cock-a-hoop at being able to say that Labour has reverted to type, whilst the left - a descriptor I would generally accept for myself - seemed to take a perverse pleasure from the new 50p tax rate for the rich, a change many have willed for years and the recession gives them an opportunity to introduce.

What no-one, in either party or beyond the parties, seems to be doing is genuinely confronting what the future looks like within the new economic reality that confronts us.

There is broadly a consensus that the first task is to get the economy moving again - stopping recession turning into depression. And it is hoped that a mixture of the fiscal stimulus, low interest rates and quantitative easing will deliver this. There is a second area of consensus that in the new world order we need to lock in a new economic and regulatory structure to make sure we can never sleep walk into this catastrophe again; whilst at the same time retaining the dynamism and energy which have driven our prosperity in recent decades.

But once those things are done, we will still have an enormous inherited national debt and a very long road back to an annual budget surplus; with long-term consequences for levels of taxation and interest rates, and the vitality and prosperity of the British economy as a whole.

So where in the acres of newsprint and rolls of press releases, were the commentators genuinely confronting the hard choices which face us to rebuild our economy in the new economic reality in which all the tectonic plates have shifted?

On debt the questions we should be debating are about what should our long-term level of national debt be? How quickly should we seek to move back to annual budget surplus? Once we do so, should we try to pay back the national debt or simply seek to stablise?

The hardest questions for the right arise on the question of the future of taxation. It goes against their instincts but taxes clearly need to rise, but to what level and who should pay? What should the spread be between taxing income or savings, expenditure or pollution? Are the tax rises permanent or temporary? And how quickly should they come in if we are not to harm any nascent recovery?

On public spending, the biggest challenge is for the left. If we accept that getting back to budget surplus is something we do need to achieve at some point, it suggests that public spending needs to fall, and may need to do so significantly. This goes against the instincts of the left, but we need to seriously consider with a blank sheet of paper what activity the public sector does and doesn’t do, and understand fully the drain on resources this represents for the rest of the economy, and the implications for levels of taxation and interest rates. This blank sheet of paper approach needs to encompass national and local Government, and there can be no sacred cows - even in populist spending departments like health and education. Most of all, the question of public sector pensions does need a long hard look - for if the left does not do so, the right surely will.

And on both tax and spending we need to work out what the linkages are between Government activity in those areas and the rather urgent need to do something about climate change.

Sadly I didn’t read much of this in this morning's papers, nor in the fabled political blogoshere. I saw lots of political point scoring and metaphorical wagging of fingers. I read a headline in the Telegraph which said "The return of class war" (it isn’t) and one in the Guardian which said "At last the super-rich bluff is called" (is it that either?). Altogether the commentary was unedifying and utterly failed to grasp the seriousness of the situation in which we find ourselves.

We are in a national and global economic crisis which is of far greater importance to most ordinary people than the outcome of the next General Election. My sense is the British people want partisanship put to one side and politicians of all parties working together to address these issues on which their jobs, their homes and their future prosperity depend. With twelve months until the general election, I will not be holding my breath.

Posted on Apr 23, 2009 at 03:59pm


30 Comments · Show / Hide
Leave a comment »   show trash comments ·
Chris,

Very interesting article.

Where I disagree is towards the end:

'My sense is the British people want partisanship put to one side and politicians of all parties working together to address these issues on which their jobs, their homes and their future prosperity depend.'

In terms of sorting out the budget balance, I did rough figures over at Hopi's:

http://hopisen.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/hoist-from-the-comments/

We are, over the medium term looking at some combination of very large tax rises or severe spending cuts. Back of the envelope, 30% tax rises or 25% spending cuts. Or some combination.

This is a major adjustment in terms of political economy and has to be managed as such. That can't be doen by technocrats, it's a political question.

On the shape of the UK post recession I offered some thoughts here:

http://duncanseconomicblog.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/the-past-is-another-country/





Duncan Weldon @ 66 weeks and 1 day ago
The stark truth - a truth that most people, for a variety of reasons, are avoiding - is that in order to return the country's economy back to health within a few years (not decades), public spending must fall in real terms by at least 5%.

To achieve this hard decisions must be made: starting with articulating in clear and unambiguous terms the necessity and will to make such cuts; and the intelligence and skill to cut out the fat (and by Jove there is plenty of fat on this obese public and quasi-public sector) rather than the muscle.

The other side of the coin is, of course, to reduce the burden of taxation from the shoulders of the productive sectors of society. After all, we all know that there is no such thing as 'public' or 'government' money - it all comes from taxpayers' (mostly involuntary) contributions.
Max Sceptic @ 66 weeks and 1 day ago
Rubbish.

What does have to be accepted is that public services require taxartion. For too long there has been an expectation of Swedisg-level services at US taxation rates.,

It can'[t be done and no party wants to admit it.

Public spending does not necessarily need to fall;, but taxation must be high enough to sustain it and progressive enough to be fair. And there must be import restrictions and an end to the free market as the solution. It isn't anything other than the problem. Globalisation is predominantly a negative force and needs to be recognised as such
Mike Homfray @ 66 weeks and 1 day ago
No. Services need to be rationalised and radically cut.

There is too much unnecessary spending on too many unessential projects and 'services'.

There is too much 'public sector'.

There are too many public sector employees

There are too many quangos and quasi-public organisations.

The free market has not been 'free' but badly regulated. And we all know by whom.
Max Sceptic @ 66 weeks and 1 day ago
What seems to be completely lacking is that the greater amounnt of this debt is in the form of shares in the banks.

So notionally this could be sold off in a recovery and hey presto the debt has gone!

Is this a good idea or should we retain a grip on the banks so that they work in the interests of the nation and not of themselves?
David Brede @ 66 weeks and 1 day ago
Depends on the valuation we would get.

Our 70% stake in RBS is currently worth about £14bn.

Northern Rock, just before it was natioanlised, was worth £0.4bn.

Lloyds, call our stake 50%, currently valued at £8bn.

So, just to pay for this year's projected borrowing they would need to rise in value 800%. In a world where banking is less 'sexy' and more regulated, I doubt we'd get anywhere near that.
Duncan Weldon @ 66 weeks and 1 day ago
A great article Chris and yes, some very hard choices will need to be made over the next few years.

As much as I would prefer the chancellor (no, all politicians) to tell us the truth and drop the spin, I guess it's political (human) nature not to.

Whilst the idea of the parties working together is great in principle, the issue arises when they disagree on what should be done to rectify the problem - as is happening now.

Maybe Gordon is right and we should be borrowing and spending our way out of the recession.

Likening it to a small business facing liquidation, if it could borrow £20k it could produce goods it could sell at £40k and so fight it's way out of trouble. The problem is that if it borrows the £20k and doesn't sell anything - it's even worse off.

Likening it to David's way, the company tightens its belt, and pays back the debt. Not pleasant and not popular but it gets it done.

As the shareholders it would surely come down to trust. If the business were on the point of liquidation, who would we trust to turn it around? The MD that oversaw the company getting to that point or the untried new guy?

Personally, whoever gets in next year - and I suspect it will be the Tories - I would like to see the likes of Vince Cable take over as chancellor. In fact I'd like to see experienced / qualified people take over the relevant government positions.

To focus on the 2 main parties, my personal belief is that there is room for both "Labour thinking" and "Tory thinking" within a successful, long term economy.

Businesses should be free to grow and build but with a degree of regulation - and regulation with teeth!

Entities like the NHS etc should be run like a business. No, not to make a profit, but to be as efficient as possible so the money spent on it goes where it should - the sharp end and not to tiers of middle managers. I would rather see 1 highly paid, effective manager than 2 lower paid ineffective ones

My personal prediction is that the Tories will win the election next year and we will see the economy improve for a few months after that. Why? Because I think the country is in need of a change as it was in 1997.

Whether the Tories capitalise on this remains to be seen.
G BN @ 66 weeks and 1 day ago
Yes, good article. We are in a serious mess, but the budget was a fantasy. A major effort to put the pain on hold for as long as it takes for another election. We're all personally going to be paying for this.
Tom Stickland @ 66 weeks and 1 day ago
The scale of the numbers may have changed, but the fundamental debate remains the same as it ever was.

Do we want better public services with more investment, and lower levels of borrowing? If so, this means higher taxes.

Or do we want lower taxes, and lower levels of borrowing? If so, this means worse public services starved of investment.

You pays your money..
Andrew H @ 66 weeks and 1 day ago
How about less 'services' and a much smaller, more efficient public sector?
Max Sceptic @ 66 weeks and 1 day ago
No, thanks. I'm not a Tory and don't wish to follow Tory ideology. If you want that, fine, but there should be at least one party willing to offer an alternative. The problem is that there isn't.
Mike Homfray @ 66 weeks and 1 day ago
exactly, Andrew, and its that reality which NL did not face up to.
Mike Homfray @ 66 weeks and 1 day ago
Thatcher and the Tories failed.

Brown and New Labour failed.

We need proportional representation to move forward from the 2 party oligopoly & restrain the politicos.
Tim Purell @ 66 weeks and 1 day ago
As a Dutchman with long experience of proportional representation, I could not agree with you more!
What it leads to is the end to "Yah boo" politics that this country has suffered from since the end of the Second World war
Dutch 99 @ 66 weeks and 1 day ago
If the electoral system is up for grabs, personally, I favour a one party state.
Charles Hardwidge @ 66 weeks and 1 day ago
How about a no party state.
Winston Smith @ 66 weeks and 1 day ago
It's a nice idea, but I don't think it could work: politicians are nothing if not egotists - it would be like a remake of Whatever happened To Baby Jane where Bette davis and Joan Crawford jockeyed for top billing. I don't think either Cameron or Brown would be able to work together.

I personally think the best perason to be Chancellor would be Vince Cable, who is a trained accountant and foresaw our present problems - but I can't imagine Osborne buying that.

the only successful coalition was the one during the second world war, and there was quite a lot of hostility amongst it's members.

I can't see either of the main parties being prepared to co-operate. The LibDems only hope would be if there were to be a hung parliament, but, as things stand, I can't really see that is going to happen.
Alan Giles @ 66 weeks and 2 days ago
We've seen what happens when politicians are handed absolute power:

Be they Labour or Tory, their banker friends whisper in their ears and create their own Nirvana. Goldman Sachs are the most powerful bakers on the planet. GS top dog Gavyn Davies is a close personal friend of Gordon Brown. Toy Blair walked into a £1,000,000+ p/a 'consultancy' job for JP Morgan. Take the power from the LabCon oligopoly and distrubute it between a plethora of minor parties where your vote counts. They'll be spending so much time squabbling and building coalitions they won't have time to pander to the bankers latest demands.

The only change that can have any meaning is to have a change from the ConLab elective dictatorship.
Tim Purell @ 66 weeks and 1 day ago
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3560461/significant-cuts-are-hidden-away-in-the-budget.thtml

Appears someone has discovered the "CUTS" in the budget

Gives another spin to the comments made by Darling yesterday
Stronghold Barricades @ 66 weeks and 2 days ago
Oh dear. Dear oh dear oh dear.

Why can they just not be honest and admit it up front? Why does it seem like every Budget and PBR recently stuff has been hidden away in the annexes and then brought to light? I'll tell you why - too many SpAds.

I really think that, in an alternative universe where Brown had been replaced as leader, Labour could have been in with a shot at the next election if they had set out their stall along the lines of Chris's article above. It even has resonance with Brown's 'Government of all the talents' (remember that?) when he took office. Instead the Government is now more interested in petty politicking and spin with the Tories than doing things in the best interests of the country. It's so, so sad.
james thompson @ 66 weeks and 1 day ago
Well James, sad is hardly the word. Brown has spent our money like a drunken sailor. If I ran my company by spending more than its income but promised the bank manager that I could just perpetually borrow more as I had discovered how never to repay its debts the bank would have pulled the plug long ago. Rightly. Brown's time has come. And gone. To see the beloved leader in the House of Commons, smirking and fiddling about with the boy at the next desk like some inky-fingered schoolboy, while Cameron congratulated him on his wise and sensible conduct of the nation's finances was pathetic. My children will be paying back these colossal sums for years as well as their student loans to pay for tuition that Brown and his mates had for nothing when they were young. Manifesto promise? Bunch of lies more like.
William Silver @ 66 weeks and 1 day ago
Another good article, full of normal common sense. The impact of the truly horrible National Debt data in the Budget seems to be hitting home on both sides. Over the next 10 years there will be real cuts in the Public Sector and tax rises for most people.



Tom Sacold @ 66 weeks and 2 days ago
i agree, another good article - what's gone wrong ? change of editorial policy or change of editor ?
david cheeseman @ 66 weeks and 1 day ago
Bang-on, excellent stuff.

I fear your penultimate sentence is a little naive though, or perhaps just too optimistic of human nature. Ideologies are just too different and too entrenched, rivalries too bitter and memories too long.

The best we can hope for is some shuffling of the deck-chairs on HMS UK to balance the ship and keep the portholes above the waves, at least till the weight of debt can be off-loaded. And that probably means towards the centre.
The Very Celia Stobart @ 66 weeks and 2 days ago
" I will not be holding my breath."



apparently the LibDems and the labour Party have been having intense discussions (behind the scenes) at all levels with regards to how they may work together - source Steve Richards, Independent.


The only party with the hard questions are the Tories...both on Taxation and Public Spending...


and as thay have "superficially" been in agreement with the Labour Party on everything...


There are no hard questions for the Labour Party as it is a party in decline. The question will be for those (in the minority) in the Labour Party who are still keen on power .... what are they going to do????



interesting and invigorating times ahead.
ash cash @ 66 weeks and 2 days ago
Chris,

I think really our current situation is a Life on Mars replay of the political morass of the 1970s and all that encompassed it.

Big government, the command and control of the economy and of public goods does not work. It's been tried twice and failed spectacularly twice. There have been many commentators mostly from the left that are happy to declare that capitalism is dead.

Wrong. Big government socialism is dead. Capitalism has at its heart the means to reinvent itself, to re-innovate using the 'creative destruction' of a downturn to tap new markets and exploit the surpluses of capacity that a downturn leaves behind.

Whilst the ethos of universal education and healthcare 'free at the point of use' are engrained into the national psyche. Who provides it is up for grabs and as this administration has ably demonstrated to the electorate - government are not necessarily the people to do all of it.

As Blair was accused of not using his large three-digit majority and golden legacy to be best when Labour was at its boldest. The Conservatives will not miss their chance.

In terms of what the electorate want. As a mere taxpayer, I sense a quiet fury and rage amongst my friends, acquaintances and work colleagues. They aren't going to take to the streets with placards but the government's efforts to deflect the blame haven't worked; the smears and expenses scandals as well as the recession have holed the SS Labour ship well below the waterline.

It's going to come down to voter turnout and the appetite for Dan Hannan's YouTube video showed is to dish out a damning and no-doubt historical electoral verdict.
a b @ 66 weeks and 2 days ago
Is that some sort of joke? It is capitalism which has led to the current mess, and it will continue to do so. The Tories will no doubt win next time and largely provide more of the same. The red herrings of this sort of 'reform' agenda are an irrelevance.
Mike Homfray @ 66 weeks and 1 day ago
I'm sure the Tories won't miss a chance to push full steam ahead and some voters will welcome that with relish. May you get what you wish for.

"Creative destruction" is a myth. It's just the toppling of overgrown and rotten structures. New growth is where the action is.

It's odd to see how more dumb managers and the already well off being given even more of the same power works. But the Tories aren't interested in what works, merely winning.
Charles Hardwidge @ 66 weeks and 2 days ago
In my opinion this is the best article to appear so far on LabourList. Thank you.

Chris I agree with everything you say. Like it or not, most of the next decade will be about hard choices, and the sooner we collectively face up to that, and try and build some consensus, the better. I wish I had something constructive to add but you've said it for me. I will be interested to hear the reactions from others here in the comments.
james thompson @ 66 weeks and 2 days ago
Chris, I completely agree. Lots of brouhaha about quite insignificant measures in the Budget which - the 50% top rate of tax - which by the Government's own measures won't raise a huge amount of revenue, and not enough serious head scratching and proposals for how to get us out of this mess!!
Paul Afshar @ 66 weeks and 1 day ago