The King is redundant! Long Live the MPC!

September 22, 2012 10:15 am

Mervyn King yesterday announced that he would give his explicit approval to this Tory-led Government to break one of its most important rules – a rule that Labour has consistenly said was impossible and unfair given the Government’s kamakazi economic policy. Yesterday Mervyn King gave the green light to the Government not to cut the deficit by 2015.

By placing himself so close to the Government, Mervyn King has set a precedent that not only fundamentally changes the nature of the relationship between the Government and the Bank of England, but one which has single-handedly undermined the independence of the Bank and the ability of future governors to act independently of Westminster.

However, more importantly, Mervyn in many ways is helping the Government at its own game of deception. Its economic policy of cutting far and fast has failed as tax receipts have plummeted and unemployment has soared. They are at the core of their own failure to deal with the deficit.

We should be very clear: Osborne’s plan has failed and our deficit, far from being smaller, is the biggest it has ever been at £14.41bn in August.

Indeed thirteen of the economists who wrote in support of Osborne in 2010 have now turned their backs. As the economy continues its dip into the biggest double dip recession since the war and our GDP is still 4.5% lower than its 2008 peak, there can be no doubt that George Osborne must change his fiscal rule on debt unless he wants to drive Austerity Britain into a deeper crisis. Jonathan Portes of the NIESR, has recently written:

“In the short term, there is plenty that can be done to help the UK economy. The main thing holding back growth in the UK is bad policy.”

Will King support the Chancellor who has mooted a benefits freeze for those he has put on the unemployment pile – adding to the housing benefit cap and other policies that has pushed the number of people in temporary housing up 26% and the number of businesses failing to 68 a day since this government took office. At the same time as the Tory-led coalition is forcing Britain back to the social divisions of the 1980’s and the poverty of the 1930’s, Labour is offering a message of hope and is offering a real alternative.

To their great credit, Ed Balls and Rachel Reeves have continued to call for government action to stimulate demand, with just marginal effects on borrowing. Bringing forward long-term investment plans, building 25,000 new and affordable homes, lowering tax for small businesses and for families. These policies, far from trying to rely on the turbulent markets for recovery, show that Labour understands that confidence in the markets comes from supportive Government policies, rather than policies that stymy growth. It is these policies that will ultimately lower the deficit. On the plan for a temporary cut in National Insurance, Portes says:

“A temporary cut in National Insurance Contributions for both employers and low-paid employees would boost labour and consumer demand at the same time as improving work incentives.”

With up to two and a half years before the next election, voters now have a clear choice. On the one hand we have a party, supported by a politicized governor of the Bank of England whose response to the continuing crisis has been to push unemployment up to 2.59 million, trying to cut the deficit through cutting public investment in schools, roads, and hospitals.

I think that when we consider what Mr King has to say, we should note the warnings that Labour and former members of the MPC, like David Blanchflower and Adam Posen, have consistently given. We should bare in mind that an economic policy that is based on blindly cutting deficit is self-defeating unless it can boost demand, boost business and boost its credibility by supporting everyone in society not just the one percent.

  • Ruthie85

    If you think Mervyn King has given the green light to the Government to change course, and you think the Government *should* change course, then what’s the problem?

  • John_Dore

    Wonk says “Tory led” and “cutting to far far too fast” Ooh we’re all ears now.  Then some spurious statements about creating demand.

    I am sorry Alex but nobodys listening..

  • AlanGiles

    I should just say Mr. King is being realisitic and actually saying what many are thinking

    • aracataca

       The target is and always was impossible to reach. I didn’t realise you were a fan Alan.  Natalie Bennet and Mervyn King both heroes of yours Alan- the mind boggles.

      • AlanGiles

         Ah, you found the right thread in the end Bill, after the pointless remark in the Yacoob thread. Well done – we’d give you a round of applause if the audience were here.

        You do, with the greatest respect, say the daftest things. Since when has agreeing with a bit of common sense (in this case from King) meant you are a “fan”?. We can all agree the governments current stance isn’t working.

        As for Ms Bennett – well when she has “rocked the boat” or claimed for non-existant “cleaning” bills, or claimed second home allowance on her parents home, or had her moat cleaned, or bought an £8000 Tv set with our money, then I might find her wanting. She has been in her job for a fortn ight, Bill, so what the hell is your problem?

        As it is, If I may be totally frank about it, when I think of wind-up merchants like your goodself  just looking for arguments for the sake of arguments, and being the face of Labour 2012, then the Greens begin to look a far more attractive prospect.

        It’s rather sad when, in the week LL writers have been trying to paint the Labour party as a group of meek and mild saints, totally devoid of hypocrisy and deviousness  you come alomg and foul the footpath.

  • Brumanuensis
    • Dave Postles

       Will King take responsibility for the downgrading of the UK credit rating (FWIW) by one of the Credit-rating agencies?  It’s a policy in tatters.  It’s an admission that King did not foresee the continued Eurozone difficulties.  In that respect, he has failed in his analysis and so has Osborne.  Whatever excuse they use for not eliminating the deficit (and reducing the debt) as proposed, they are culpable of a lack of foresight in their analysis.  Take the hit, gentlemen.

  • Daniel Speight

    Whatever is said it should be noted that absolutely nothing is Mervyn King’s fault. This man can out-Greenspan Greenspan in the sloping shoulders brigade.

    • Dave Postles

       Exactly.

  • Dave Postles

    IMHO, his term should never have been renewed.  Many have consistently suggested that he missed the signs.  A few months ago, when oil prices were rising and the prospect for food prices looked precarious (given the poor harvests throughout the world), he maintained that inflation would be under control.  Unfortunately, the prospective candidates for the next Guv’nor look disappointing, when the BoE will have enhanced powers, which will magnify the mistakes of the BoE.  There is a point to multiple jurisdictions in that it obviates the autocratic incompetence of a single jurisdiction. 

  • Quiet_Sceptic

    Some of this doesn’t stack up – to give the economy a major boost is going to take major stimulus, at least initially, yet apparently with only a minor increase in the deficit.25k new homes, bringing forward investment and tweaking NICs may be a step in the right direction but it’s not credible to claim that this on its own will get the economy growing again. I bet even taken together these measures wouldn’t replace the demand lost due to the collapse in household lending.Labour’s going to need something a lot bolder – 25,000 new homes? How about 25,000 per quarter for the next 4 years?

  • aracataca

    Great piece. Of course the greatest danger is of killing demand completely as happened in Japan. If we hit deflation then we will have to spend trillions trying to get out of it. It will make the kind of stimulus proposed by Balls & co look tiny. Japan’s ambition 20 years into a balance sheet depression is to obtain an inflation rate of 1% next year. In attempting to reach this target it has spent trillions of yen and Japanese government  debt makes Greece’s debt look like very small beer. We need a massive stimulus and we need it now. Balls’ plan is a good place to start.

  • https://mikestallard.virtualgallery.com/ Mike Stallard

    “We should be very clear: Osborne’s plan has failed and our deficit, far from being smaller, is the biggest it has ever been at £14.41bn in August.”

    Left and right are at one on this.
    The difference is that the right wing blogs want to cut back the state and cut back on the borrowing so that, as you say, tax can also be cut back to allow freedom to grow.
    Meanwhile the left wants to increase the power of the state with more “investment”.

    I, as a right wing troll, can remember the disaster of Mr Wilson………

  • JoeDM

    The structure of the global economy has changed over the past two decades.   The terms of trade have turned against all western economies due to the globalisation of industrial production.   The comparative advantage in producing manufactured goods in western economies  has been lost and with it went the jobs for those in those industries.

    Only a major reform that addresses this basic economic fact will have any long term effect.   At the fundamental level this short-term Keynesian stuff is just pissing in the wind against long-term change in the global economy.

    • Brumanuensis

      ‘Short-term Keynesian stuff’

      Do you even understand what Keynesian economics is?

      • JoeDM

        I spent a number of years researching and teaching macro economics.   Naive Keynesianism is nothing more than a  snake oil solution dressed in simple algebra.   There are more holes in it than a Swiss cheese,  but it does act as a nice comfort banket for those left-wing academics (and others) that don’t want to go down the marxist road.

        When I was first taught it at Uni back in the 70s I asked my tutor to outline the micro-economic foundations of Keynesian theory and he couldn’t, though he did try.   Then I discoverd that the long-term data concerning consumption etc.  simply did not support the fundamental theoretical basis of Keynes’s view, and it still doesn’t.  Add to that the lack of real evidence for the so-called ‘multiplier’ effect actually increasing output above trend in the long-term and you are left with the strong suspicion that its not exactly the most robust of theoretical structures.   But politicians do like it as it seems to give them excuses for spending our money.

        • Brumanuensis

          Where exactly is this complaint about ‘the microeconomic foundations of Keynesian theory’ coming from? I know dear old Robert Lucas thought he’d sunk Keynesian economics with his critiques – now whose ideas get sniggered at in seminars, eh Bob? – but in fact there was, contrary to your tutor’s inadequacies, a great deal of existing work on potential Keynesian micro. Keynes, of course, was prevented from doing his own work on this topic by a combination of ill-health and the Second World War, but luckily writers such as Mogdiliani and Tobin had done work during the ’50s and ’60s on consumption and investment. Meanwhile, even earlier, Keynes’ contemporary John Hicks – he of IS/LM –  had effectively created the neoclassical synthesis, arguably one of the greatest contributions to modern economics, assisted subsequently by Paul Samuelson’s mathematical modelling.

          More recently, ‘New’ Keynesians such as Greg Mankiw, Christy and John Romer, and John Taylor, et al, have added their own contributions to the topic. So the idea that this is a barren area is just wrong, frankly. If the best arguments against Keynes are misconceptions and some bastardised variant of Ricardian equivalence – which no-one, except Barro, takes seriously anymore – then Keynes is in rude health. And the recent events in global economics have rather tended to vindicate him, rather than his critics, with their pontificating about the alleged miracles of ‘expansionary fiscal-contraction’. 
           
          Further thought: how did the Chinese get into a position of economic strength? It certainly wasn’t through laissez-faire or an enthusiasm for Hayek.

        • Brumanuensis

          I will have to disagree with you on Southampton’s merits vs Birmingham too though, Joe ;)

        • http://twitter.com/waterwards dave stone

          “it (‘naive’ Keynesianism)  does act as a nice comfort banket for those left-wing academics (and others) that don’t want to go down the marxist road.”

          I’d go along with this. As a solution Keynesianism is produced with banal regularity yet always as a virtuous other, almost like a rabbit out of a hat. It really is time to move on – but not to Marxism which, also, is another comfort blanket.

  • robertcp

    Ruth, there is not one if the Coalition has enough sense to change course.   Eliminating such a large deficit was never going to be possible in one Parliament.  It will probably take until 2020 to get the deficit back to a sustainable level.  My worry is that Osborne is too stupid to understand that billions of welfare cuts will be just as self-defeating as the last two years.

    It should be remembered that surpluses are very rare for British governments.  This did not, however, stop government debt as a percentage of the economy declining for nearly all of the post-war era thanks to inflation and growth. 

  • WilliamPatten

    I would just like to point out that this has been written by the same person who has just, in an entirely derisory article for Labour Uncut, accused Rachel Reeves of writing speeches based on opinion, not fact. Here, however, he is praising her economic policy. Political schizophrenia?

  • Alex Glasner

    William – that is completely untrue. I don’t normally comment on articles that I’ve written. But

    a) I think you must have misunderstood my last article.
    b) I mentioned no politician. I think that Rachel Reeves, Ed Ball and Labour’s economic team have the right policy when it comes to bringing back demand and building our economy again through opposing some of the most disastrous and self-defeating cuts, as well as through implementing policies that will help the economy.
    c) I don’t agree with some of Labour’s policy on banking, but I disagree with the Coalition’s.
    d) I think that all political parties have a lot to learn from the city – this is the point. I’m not sure if you’ve every heard Cameron speak, but it appears as more bravado than brilliant policy

Latest

  • News Labour Equal marriage amendment gets Tory backing

    Labour Equal marriage amendment gets Tory backing

    From: HERBERT, Nick Sent: 20 May 2013 16:29 To: HERBERT, Nick Subject: Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill – voting today   Dear Colleague Thank you for your support for the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill at Second Reading. You will be aware of the amendments tabled by Tim Loughton and others (new Clauses 10 & 11) to extend civil partnerships to heterosexual couples I have no issue with the principle of this proposal, but I am very worried that adding this measure to the [...]

    Read more →
  • News Whitewash report claims that there’s no such thing as DWP “league tables” for sanctions

    Whitewash report claims that there’s no such thing as DWP “league tables” for sanctions

    Whilst the Westminster village has been working itself up into a lather over the rise of UKIP and when/if there should be an EU referendum, the DWP snuck out a report on the evidence of DWP league tables that we brought you recently. It’s a total whitewash. The report – which you can read here – argues that claims of a league table are entirely down to individual managers at a number of job centres. You could call it the [...]

    Read more →
  • Featured Equal Marriage is the most important thing – but Labour can’t let Equal Civil Partnerships get the “long grass” treatment

    Equal Marriage is the most important thing – but Labour can’t let Equal Civil Partnerships get the “long grass” treatment

    So after toying with support for the Tim Loughton amendment over the weekend, Labour has decided to abstain on that particular amendment, and propose their own. Let’s be clear – the most important news today is that Equal Marriage will pass through the commons, and that’s a cause for huge celebration for all but an isolated minority in the Labour Party. I made clear this morning that I didn’t buy the argument that supporting the Loughton amendment would stop or [...]

    Read more →
  • News Labour’s Equal marriage Bill amendment on Civil Partnerships

    Labour’s Equal marriage Bill amendment on Civil Partnerships

    Labour MPs will be encouraged to back this amendment – rather than that of Tory backbencher Tim Loughton – today: House of Commons Monday 20 May 2013 CONSIDERATION OF BILL New Amendments handed in are marked thus * MARRIAGE (SAME SEX COUPLES) BILL MANUSCRIPT AMENDMENT (a) As an Amendment to Secretary Maria Miller’s proposed New Clause (Review of civil partnership) (NC16):- Kate Green (a)(a * Line 8, leave out from ‘practicable’ to end of Clause, and insert ‘and include a [...]

    Read more →
  • News Is Ed Miliband picking a fight with Google?

    Is Ed Miliband picking a fight with Google?

    In his interview with the Observer yesterday, Ed Miliband singled out Google as a company who aren’t “living up to their responsibilities” on tax, saying: ” I don’t think [Google] are living up to their responsibilities at the moment, and I will be very clear about that on Wednesday. It is part of a culture of irresponsibility. If everyone approaches their tax affairs as some of these companies have approached their tax affairs we wouldn’t have a health service, we wouldn’t [...]

    Read more →