My latest Huff Post blog

Britain’s political elites are doing deals this weekend, trying to form a government. Gingerly making their way across the shifting tectonic plates of public opinion; wary of being tripped up again by voters.

For, let’s face it, the British electorate are no fools.

As the governor of the Bank of England apparently warned last week, they are mad as hell. Austerity measures will not be tolerated, and will keep any governing party out of power for a generation .

So there is a lot to lose.

Voters listened carefully last autumn as David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party and his Finance Minister, George Osborne turned a blind eye to the reckless behaviour of the City of London. They ignored the extent to which taxpayers had bailed out private bankers, and taken the full burden of their losses on to the public sector balance sheet. Instead Osborne implied that responsibility for economic failure lay with millions of public sector workers, and the essential services they provide.

In a politically disastrous move, Osborne threatened to punish the innocents with a ‘new Age of Austerity’ , while promising to give an inheritance tax break to the 3,000 richest families in the country. He vowed “to freeze the pay of millions of public sector workers, cut benefits enjoyed by the middle classes and cap civil service pensions at £50,000 a year.”

As a result, and despite the fact that Conservatives were at that point 17 points ahead of Labour and headed for a landslide – their vote slumped.

Canny British voters refused to behave like turkeys voting for Christmas, and steadily withdrew support.

There then began a concerted effort to silence Osborne (it seems he was locked up in a cupboard for the duration of the election campaign). Nevertheless, the damage was done, and the Tories failed to muster a majority of seats in the House of Commons last Thursday.

Labour, under the leadership of Gordon Brown and to the surprise of many, managed to staunch the political wounds inflicted earlier on his party by his predecessor, Tony Blair. 13.5 million had voted for Labour in 1997 – in good faith. By 2005 and during ‘the good times’ when Britain was growing at 3% per annum – Labour’s vote had plummeted to 9.6 million – which is why Blair had to go. He had lost the Labour Party 3.9 million voters.

Then, just as Gordon Brown took over the premiership, ‘the world economy fell off a cliff’.

Economic failure, unemployment and the failure to rein in bankers cost Brown’s government about 900,000 votes last week – fully 3 million votes less than were lost under Tony Blair.

In other words, Labour’s lost voters were lost long before 6th May, 2010.

Sceptical of the Conservatives and fed up with Labour, voters turned their attention to the ‘new boy’ on the block – Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Excited by the media spotlight, the inexperienced Clegg blundered, fell victim to hubris, and asked incredulously how Mr Brown could “squat” in No 10 even if Labour came third in the popular vote.

In the event it was Mr Clegg’s Liberal Democrats that trailed in third place.

As quickly as they had risen, his party’s hopes were dashed – thwarted by shrewd voters.

Nevertheless, Cameron and Clegg have grabbed the post-election spotlight, and are doing deals behind closed doors to forge a coalition, and force out Brown.

Many expect the negotiations to fail, for want of common ground – on for example, the cancellation of the Trident nuclear submarine, and electoral reform. So power-sharing is doomed to fail, if not this week, then by this autumn.

In the meantime, the real deal-makers are to be found elsewhere.

Across the Irish Sea . In Belfast, Northern Ireland.

The fact is that none of the political parties can afford another election campaign for the next year or so, and the Lib Dems and Tories are too far apart for a sustainable power-sharing deal. Cameron knows this. So expect the Conservatives to put in calls to the 8 members of the Democratic Unionist Party, in the hope that their support will enable David Cameron to govern as a minority government.

This way they would keep both Labour and the Liberal Democrats at bay.

That is, if they are not dislodged by the tectonic plates of ‘austerity’ – that could keep Conservatives out of power for the next generation.

17th January, 2009.

This was posted on the Compass site on the 16th January.

I am shortlisted for the North West Durham Parliamentary Selection. A less likely candidate you would be hard pressed to find. I am not a local big wig and did not grow up in the constituency. I don’t have the backing of big hitters – either in the party, or in the unions. Nor am I a youthful 25-year-old, ambitious for power. No, I am far more ambitious than that.

I want the people (especially the young people) of North West Durham to have a sound and stable future. I want Britain to learn from the catastrophic debacle of the financial crisis, and ensure it never happens again. The hopes, aspirations, health, jobs, businesses and climate of Britain must not be sacrificed to pay for economic failure engineered by a small elite in the City of London.

That’s David Cameron’s plan: to deflect the terrain of political debate from the City and focus it instead on the public sector finances. Under this plan public services are targeted as the cause of the crisis; ‘balancing the budget’ the solution; and those least responsible expected to bear the long-term costs.

While the Liberal Democrats and some Labour Ministers have been lured on to this terrain, the British people as a whole are proving less gullible and malleable.

Cameron’s ‘austerity’ strategy has backfired – thanks to the intelligence and common sense of British voters.

That’s why I am standing, because British voters are looking for a resolution to this crisis that does not victimise, but compensates taxpayers; tames the perpetrators, and ensures that the crisis is not repeated.

I am standing too because I am ambitious for an effective, democratic local and national Labour campaign – using all the modern media – that encourages Labour’s core voters to join the party again. That mobilises disillusioned voters from the trade union movement, the Green movement, the NGOs and the faith organisations. A campaign that ensures that a Labour government and Labour MPs speak for, and represent the people that elected them – not the finance sector.

Then I want to help ensure that a new Labour government provides the resources and industrial framework needed to de-carbonise our economy and make our country more energy efficient. I want the people of North West Durham and their children and grandchildren to have a sound and steady economy, and a stable climate in which to live and thrive.

To achieve those ambitions we must support Gordon Brown’s determination to cut government borrowing.

Contrary to economic ‘groupthink’ cutting government borrowing is best achieved by investing in jobs, generating tax revenues, and cutting spending on unemployment benefits.

In other words by spending away the debt.

Of course that does not make sense to the economically illiterate Tories, and its anathema to many orthodox economists. But it makes sense to anyone on a first year course in economics, who understands the ‘multiplier’. To evidence my point see this chart – with data provided by the Treasury (Public finances databank, Table A10) and with thanks to my colleagues in the Green New Deal group.

This is a chart of Britain’s public debt as a share of GDP – from 1858 until 2002. (Please note the difference between the debt and deficit. The annual deficit is not a measure of the scale of government spending. It’s a measure of the annual outcome of that spending. The deficit (but not the debt) could rise because e.g. the Treasury cuts public investment, has to pay out more in benefit payments and loses tax revenues.)

Note that Britain’s debt today – as a proportion of the national cake or GDP – is about 55% and rising. It was twice that in 1858 – about 100% of GDP.

Government debt is expected to hit 70% soon. That’s largely because of the City of London bail-out which cost the government a massive £150 billion between 2007 and 2009.

In 1946 Britain’s debt was roughly 5 times what it is today – a staggering 250% of GDP.

At that point an extraordinary thing happened.

The heavily indebted Labour government began to spend – as soon as legislation was agreed by Parliament.

Labour invested in a bold and visionary project: – a publicly funded health service free at the point of use – the NHS. There was a slum clearance and housing programme. They revived the ancient universities, provided pensions and welfare to the poor. They trained ex-soldiers to become teachers.

To revive the economy, to protect the vulnerable, and to prepare the country for the threat posed by climate change – a Labour government must do the same again: invest in a Green New Deal.

What happened to the public debt in the 40s and 50s, you might ask, as a result of Clem Attlee and Hugh Dalton’s apparent extravagance and flouting of the economic orthodoxy? Did the deficit balloon, the bond markets blackmail the government, and did capitalism as we know it, go into free fall?

No. On the contrary. Look at the chart. What Lord John Maynard Keynes advised would happen, did happen. Government investment kick-started private economic activity. Tax revenues rose, expenditure on unemployment benefits fell, and government cut its borrowing, which fell dramatically as a share of GDP.

And the economy thrived.

Indeed 1945- 1971 is known in economics as ‘the Golden Age’.

The spending paid down the debt.

There was not much leakage, because ‘offshore capitalism’ – the kind of capitalism that dodges regulation and taxation – was not well established then. People in Britain were getting jobs and paying taxes in Britain – and so were employers, and businesses in which they spent their earnings.

Can a Labour government repeat this achievement, given globalisation?

I believe we can.

Labour will have to rein in the ‘offshore capitalists’ and bring them onshore. The government is already doing that, tackling abuse in its tax havens, restricting generous allowances for the wealthiest, and raising the tax rate to 50% for bank bonuses.

Next Labour must build on existing investment in infrastructure projects and mobilise a ‘carbon army’ of ‘green-collar’ jobs that cannot be outsourced.  Gordon Brown’s announcement of a new round of licences to support the growing offshore wind industry was a first step in that direction.

These actions will ensure a future for the people of North West Durham, and for the British Isles as a whole. Indeed with ambition, Labour could recreate ‘the golden age’. This time based on a steady-state economy. That’s my ambition, and why I have put myself forward for the candidacy of North West Durham.

Ann Pettifor

Is Warren Buffett right? If this bail-out had been passed by congress, would it have halted the meltdown?

I don’t believe so. Here’s why…

First, this is a bail-out of a small number of shareholders and creditors with stakes in Wall Street financial institutions – people like investment guru Warren Buffett – and potentially some foreign banks.

Almost as an aside, Section 23 of the Act requires that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson “take into consideration…..the need to help families keep their homes and to stabilize communities”.

He may well take their plight into consideration, but Congress has given him full discretion, and he is under no obligation to act.

But to understand why the bail-out is framed in this way, and why it will not work, let’s delve a little deeper into the economic policies that got us into this mess.
Reckless lending

The reason banks have excessive debts lies with government and Federal Reserve policies to de-regulate credit creation – policies introduced from the 1970s onwards.

This made it easy – and highly profitable – for banks to lend recklessly. The Fed and other central banks turned a blind eye to the terms on which banks, and the growing shadow banking sector, lent.

Second, the Fed, as with other central banks, effectively gave up its powers to control the rate of interest across the board, for safe and risky, and short and long-term loans. Instead interest rates – the price of credit – were effectively privatised.

Next the government’s policies ensured that the share of the national cake (GDP) going to employees in the form of wages and other compensation, fell for the three decades after the 1970s. That too, was no accident.

Third, all that ‘easy money’ or credit acted like a giant pump, and inflated the price of assets e.g. property. The rich on the whole own assets, and could use their assets to borrow even more ‘easy money’, flip condos, move up the property market, buy stocks, race horses, works of art etc.

So asset prices rose higher, and higher. This helps explains why the rich became richer and the poor, poorer.

Easy credit

The less well-off, those without assets, but with falling incomes, were not so lucky. To put a roof over the heads of their families, to go to college, they had to borrow. They even took to using credit cards to pay everyday food bills etc. The very poor – sub-primers – were given loans, but at very high, and very profitable, rates.

While the credit pump inflated asset prices, it also encouraged consumption. People used easy credit to go shopping – on a grand scale.

Anglo-American governments gave up on other sectors of the economy – i.e. manufacturing – and believed foolishly, that we could all live by shopping or by services, like hairdressing and financial services, while the Chinese manufactured our goods.

Now the credit pump is broken, and the bubble has burst. Asset prices are falling, and people are not shopping on the same scale.

What broke the pump? First and foremost, the very high, real rates of interest that had to be paid on these debts. Because of the privatisation of interest, these rates were high (eg: the rate charged on your credit card), even when official (i.e. central bank base rates) were low. Secondly, falling real incomes made it hard to repay rising debts. So people began to default.

These defaults began to expose the reckless lending of banks, and these institutions too began to fail. The rest is history.

Overhaul needed

What would it take to fix the system. A bail-out of banks?

No, what is required is an overhaul of the whole economic system; a system-wide fix.

• That means, first, dumping the orthodox free-market zealots responsible for the policies that got us into this mess. Frederick Hayek’s and Milton Friedman’s de-regulation policies have already been dis-credited, with Republicans obliged to disown Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan’s contempt for government.

• Second, it will be vital to restore to the Federal Reserve and other central banks the power to set the rate of interest – across the whole spectrum of lending, so that all rates can be lowered on the massive debts incurred across the board in countries that followed the Anglo-American economic model.

• Third, we must abandon the policy of holding down wages and other forms of compensation, especially if we want people to repay debts, and help salvage the banks. Jobs will have to be protected, or even created by government, and incomes must rise.

• Fourth, we have to simply write off the debts of those poor people who cannot ever repay. Just as we write off the debts of companies or governments that can no longer pay, so we must recognise that many citizens are effectively insolvent. The refusal to acknowledge this truth lies at the heart of Mr Paulson’s plan – and that is why his plan will fail.

Only a system-wide fix of economic policies will help restore stability to the Anglo-American economies. But with orthodox economists like Mr Paulson and Fed chairman Ben Bernanke still at the helm – expect Anglo-American economies to keep lurching down the long road to Depression.

When the most ardent of ‘invisible hand’ ideologues are cheering on the bail-out of Britain’s private financial sector by the “central state” (i.e. the nationalised, albeit nominally independent, Bank of England) Collins argues that “‘the only hope for the party is to excavate its liberal treasure’.

Tell that to Sir Fred Goodwin at RBS or to Ron Sandler at Northern Rock – or indeed to their depositers – all of whom have benefitted fromabout £150 bn of taxpayer-backed largesse provided by the Old Lady of Threadneedle St.