Why austerity is not Labour’s Legacy

On the relationship between finance and fiscal policy

When Momentum put out this tweet following the latest spat between Corbyn and Blair

“Blair favoured deregulation of the banking industry - leading to one of the worst crashes in modern history. While spending on public services was higher, his legacy will ultimately be the austerity that followed his failure to stand up to big finance.”

I responded with this

“This is parroting the Tory line that austerity was Labour's fault. As wrong coming from the left as it was from the right. Austerity wan't inevitable after the Global Financial Crisis. It was Osborne choosing to shrink the state, because Labour hadn't. Know your true enemy.”

Big mistake. I had criticised momentum and, in some eyes, supported Blair and twitter did its stuff. Among those supporting the momentum tweet was Clive Lewis and (maybe) Grace Blakeley, and among those agreeing with me where Tom Kibasi and Chris Dillow.

A lot of these tweets were totally irrelevant to the original tweet and my response. The original tweet is pretty clear. Blair’s failure to regulate the banking industry led to austerity. So the gradual appeasement of austerity we saw from Labour from 2010 to 2015, which I have strongly criticised elsewhere, is not relevant. Nor are Darling’s plans for cutting the deficit before the 2010 election. As I have said before, it is unfortunate that Darling won his battle against Brown and Balls and allowed reducing the deficit to be part of Labour’s short term objectives. But that has nothing to do with the momentum tweet, which involved the financial sector. [1]

Did Labour’s failure to regulate finance lead to austerity? In a very basic sense the answer is clearly no. Osborne didn’t need to embark on cutting public spending in a recession for the simple reason that no Chancellor since Keynes has done so. It was his choice. Perhaps if Labour had been tougher on banks the UK might have been less vulnerable to the Global Financial Crisis. UK banks collapsed largely because of overseas assets they had on their books (little to do with domestic debt), so the regulation would have had to stop them buying those assets, or forced them to substantially reduced their leverage. But I find it hard to believe that we would have avoided a recession of some kind.

A recession - even a mild one - was all Osborne needed. He was looking for ways to reduce public spending, and he saw a rising deficit as his opportunity. He committed to his policy in 2008, which was well before the extent of the recession was known. So it seems almost certain that the deficit would have risen sufficiently to allow Osborne to undertake austerity.

But why did he undertake austerity. I think it is because he wanted to shrink the state, something he had failed to convince voters to do on its merits [2]. What I call deficit deceit is using the supposed need to reduce the deficit to cut spending. But Grace Blakeley and Clive Lewis suggest something more complex. Here is Grace:

“I suppose it depends on how you view the emergence of neoliberalism - I see it as an ideology that both emerges from and reinforces a change in the balance of class forces under which finance capital becomes hegemonic. ‘Shrinking the state’ is generally political cover for empowering or enriching a particular group and disempowering another - eg PFI used to allow investors to profit from state spending, and austerity used to disempower small l labour at a time when it otherwise might have organised to challenge the status quo.”

Suppose Labour had regulated finance to a much greater degree, and that would include not giving it a central role in Treasury decision making, much as Brown had in 1997 with the Bank and financial sector regulation. If that had reduced the size of the UK recession that would be a good thing. But would it have prevented austerity. I cannot see how. Would it have changed Osborne’s mind about wanting austerity? I cannot see how.

Did finance assist in some ways with the austerity bandwagon. Of course it did, from City folk who said the market for UK bonds was about to collapse to pressure brought through the Treasury. But much of that would have happened even if there had been greater financial regulation. Again there was nothing a Labour government could do to prevent all that, short of nationalising the entire sector. So calling austerity Labour’s legacy makes no sense on these grounds.

Another way to link finance with austerity, pointed out to me by Clive Lewis, was in this paper by Obstfeld. The idea is fairly simple. Too big to fail is all about the state bailing out the banking system. The state has to have the ‘fiscal capacity’ to do that. Ergo we need to moderate government debt levels to preserve that capacity. To look at this argument we need to examine the concept of fiscal capacity and fiscal limit.

Can a government run up a stock of debt relative to GDP that is unbounded? MMTers are quite right to say that, in a country that prints its own currency, a government can never be forced to default. But debt to GDP might get so high that the political burden of paying taxes or curtailing spending to pay the interest on that debt becomes more than the political cost of defaulting. Defaulting can take two forms: a literal default (failure to pay interest) or excess inflation devaluing the value of nominal bonds.

That limit is clearly way above the level of current UK debt. When some say we do not know where that limit is that may be a prelude to saying ‘and it might be near the current level’ which is just designed to scare governments. Governments know their own fiscal limits and the strength of their inflation targets. But Obstfeld’s point is that a financial crisis might push a government beyond its fiscal limit.

I do not think this argument held much weight with Osborne. As I noted above, he chose his policy in 2008, and I think it would have taken him a little longer to work this one out. (Obstfeld’s paper is 2013.) It might have influenced King and some Treasury officials in 2010. But you can see how weak the argument is in a recession by looking at what the Labour government did. In 2008 it bailed out the banks and in 2009 it undertook fiscal stimulus. The reason is straightforward: a recession is as bad for the financial sector as the real economy. The financial sector is hurt by loans going bad in the real economy, something that is made more likely in a recession. The priority in a recession should always be to get out of recession. Indeed I suspect Obstfeld would agree, as his paper is not an argument for austerity.

Even though I do not think there is much credence to the argument that Labour’s failure to regulate the financial sector caused UK austerity, that does not mean that the influence of the financial sector was not crucial elsewhere. Fear about the health of the financial sector in core Eurozone countries lead directly to the imposition of first austerity, and then to a second recession. Greece was hit hardest. In 2010 Eurozone leaders were happy to let Greek leaders pile on extra debt rather than default on debt their banks partly owned. That finance ministers in the Eurogroup were then prepared to tell a subsequent Greek government that they had to pay every penny back or Greece would be out of the Eurozone. (This episode tells you a lot about the Eurozone and those finance ministers and nothing about the EU.)

Banks, and politicians failure to be honest about the need to bail them out, were central to austerity in the Eurozone. Mark Blyth’s phrase “what starts with the banks ends with the banks” remains very apt there. In addition the desire to cut taxes on the rich, many of whom work in finance, is clearly a key motivation behind austerity in the US. But if austerity in the UK is anyone’s legacy, it is George Osborne and not Brown/Blair. He, and he alone, chose to cut spending in the middle of a recession, something no Chancellor has done since Keynes wrote the General Theory in 1936.

[1] For what it is worth, a different economic policy might have changed the 2010 election outcome: Labour might have got more or less seats. But it is absurd to call something a government’s legacy just because the other side were able to do it because they won an election. Under this logic Brexit is Corbyn’s legacy etc etc.

[2] Chris Dillow and others have suggested that his main motive was just to have something to attack Labour with. Some have suggested he just got the macroeconomics wrong (or more accurately it was at least 10 years out of date). It is difficult to bring evidence to bear on this debate, but all three explanations suggest Labour’s financial regulations policy had little to do with it.

If the Tories lose an election before we leave, Brexit is unlikely to happen.

There is more talk of a general election, although of course that does not mean it will happen. In that context I frequently hear people say that a general election would do nothing to get the country out of the huge Brexit hole it has dug itself. I strongly disagree. If there is an election before we leave the EU and if Labour formed the next government, I think it would make a huge difference. Unless Labour win so many seats that it has a massive majority, I think the chances are that Brexit would just not happen at all.

Let us suppose that Jeremy Corbyn and Keir Starmer manage to negotiate some form of soft Brexit with the EU. The crucial question to then ask is what the attitude of the Conservative opposition would be. As a result of losing the election (if not before) they will have a new leader, and given the attitude of most Conservative members that leader is likely to be a Brexiter. As the Brexiters in the current party find it hard to accept the hard Brexit proposed by Theresa May, they will almost certainly oppose any soft Brexit negotiated by Labour. Brexiters are happiest when complaining, and so the line they will probably take about any Corbyn Brexit deal is that it represents a betrayal of the ‘will of the people’.

Another reason that they will oppose Labour’s soft Brexit is that they do not want Labour to be able to do something the Conservatives were unable to do. It would be the ultimate humiliation that a party that is increasingly defined as being the Brexit party could not negotiate Brexit, yet a Labour government could.

The Conservative party is increasingly looking like the Republican party in the US, with an activist and very right wing base fired up by Murdoch owned and other partisan media. The health care programme that Obama successfully introduced was very similar to something the Republican senator and presidential candidate Mitt Romney had passed in Massachusetts in 2006. Despite this the Republicans in opposition unequivocally rejected Obama’s similar reforms and fought them with all their might.

Some more moderate Conservative MPs might be tempted to support Labour because they themselves would be quite happy with a soft Brexit. They could quite plausibly argue that their aim should be to get Brexit over the line and a future Conservative government could distance the UK further from the EU. But something we have learnt over the last few years is that Tory Brexit policy has been strongly influenced by the Brexiters, and the rest of the party is extremely reluctant to break the party line. Furthermore many Tory Remainers may be happy to see Brexit fail. As a result, Corbyn cannot count on rebel Tories coming to his aid.

The final reason the Conservatives, and their supporters in the press, will not want to assist Labour in delivering Brexit is that they will scent the chance of embarrassing the new government. There are plenty of Labour MPs, backed up by many more Labour party members, who do not want to see Brexit at all, and they might vote against any agreement. In that situation the Liberal Democrats and SNP might also vote against. Shortly after an election where the Conservatives are still in shock they are extremely unlikely to help out a Labour government in difficulties.

With the Tories opposing any form of soft Brexit, Corbyn’s actions will be guided with what might happen if his Brexit plans were ever put to a referendum. Labour have now said they would hold a referendum on any deal they negotiated, and they would not be allowed to backtrack on this because a combination of Tories (yes, I know, but see above), smaller parties and Labour rebels would insist it be held. A People’s Vote under a Labour government will be a very different affair from anything held under the Tories. Tory politicians, and more importantly the Brexit press, would oppose it with all the vigour we have seen over the last few years. As so many Brexit supporters derive their devotion to the cause from the press they read, they are likely to follow that press in declaring Labour’s Brexit deal to be a betrayal. Of course Remainers would also oppose it. Labour would find both Remainers and many Brexiters campaigning against them. They would not have a chance, and Brexit would fail.

A Labour government trying to get a victory in a Brexit referendum looks like a lose lose option. They would fail to get a majority for their Brexit deal and be humiliated by the result. Once the Conservatives make their opposition clear, Labour should see this coming. But how do they avoid that outcome, as the clock will still be ticking on an extended Article 50? The issue cannot be kicked in to the long grass, and Labour will have a manifesto commitment to try and get a Brexit deal. One possibility is that after talking to other party leaders, Corbyn will announce that a Brexit deal is impossible because of Conservative and minor party intransigence and he will put to parliament that Article 50 should be revoked. That will be passed by a narrow majority (the Tories and perhaps a few Labour MPs would oppose). He will endure a day of negative headlines in the Brexit press, but just another day in a continuum of negative headlines is hardly a great cost. Most of the country will breath a large sigh of relief.

If this is the case, why would Labour promise to enact Brexit in their manifesto, if they could see it subsequently failing? For a start Labour could not be sure what the Conservative opposition would do, and it might hope to get a majority large enough to overcome its own rebel MPs. But the main reason is the same as it was in 2017. The party will want to avoid the election being about the merits or otherwise of Brexit. The Tories in an election will want to pin the blame for their failure to achieve Brexit on Labour, and if Labour switched to being a Remain party just before the election that tactic will probably be successful. Having come this far as a Brexit party, Labour will be on much firmer ground in an election if it continues to say it wants Brexit and has a better chance of succeeding than the Tories who have failed for three years.

Would it be ironic that a Labour government would fail to enact a form of Brexit because of Tory opposition? If you think about it, the Conservative government has failed to enact a form of Brexit laregely because of Tory opposition. The reason we are in this Brexit hole is that Brexiters who won a mandate for a soft Brexit then decided that only the hardest of Brexits would do. It would be poetic justice and good for the country if Brexit failed as a result.

Inequality under the Labour government

In the last few months I have sometimes been told that the last Labour government did nothing to reverse the rise of inequality seen under the previous Conservative administration. It is a serious charge, given the harm that inequality creates. But it is also incorrect, and here is a nice chart that shows why.

The Gini coefficient measures inequality. The black line looks at incomes, but the grey line looks at full time earnings. It shows that inequality in earnings was rising throughout the period, including when Labour was in power. Inequality of incomes was flatter while Labour was in power.

The chart is taken from a paper by Mike Brewer and Liam Wren-Lewis (short summary here). The authors use microdata to explain these divergent trends in the 1990s and 2000s. They find four factors at work.

“First, inequality between those with different employment statuses has fallen, primarily due to a fall in the number of unemployed. Second, employment taxes have played a larger role since 1991 in mitigating the increase in inequality of gross employment income than they did before 1991. Third, investment income has contributed less to total income inequality since 1991, largely due to the decline in its importance as an income source. Finally, a rise in the relative incomes of pensioners and households with children under five – both groups that benefited from reforms to welfare benefits and tax credits during the 1990s and (especially) 2000s – has pulled inequality down. Overall, since 1991 these four factors have almost entirely offset the impact on income inequality of the inequality-increasing changes in the distribution of earnings and self-employment income.”

Some of these factors may not have owed much to government policy, but others clearly did. The bottom line is that the last Labour government did quite a lot to reduce inequality. Only once you recognise that can you be realistic about what it would take to do more. Here are some ideas from Tony Atkinson, and I personally would be even more radical in one particular area. 

When the media is biased against the facts

When I write about what I call mediamacro, which includes bad reporting of macroeconomic issues by the media, I often receive comments suggesting that the importance of the media’s bias against Labour is exaggerated, and anyway there is nothing that can be done about it. Now of course the print media is biased against Labour, and what evidence we have also suggested a BBC bias against Labour under Miliband. But most of the time when I complain about BBC and other non-partisan media reporting on macroeconomic issues, it is not a bias against Labour that concerns me, but a bias against the facts.

Take the proposition that austerity was required because Labour borrowed too much. That proposition is simply false. The increase in the government’s deficit occurred in 2008/9 and 2009/10 as a result of the recession caused by the global financial crisis. As I noted most recently here, the Labour government before the recession was clearly not profligate in the normal meaning of that term. So when Conservatives constantly talk about having to clear up the mess Labour left, and this goes unchallenged in the media, that has the effect of legitimising a false statement.

What we have in this case is a variation on what they call in the US a ‘shape of the earth: views differ’ style of reporting. In that case one side claims the earth is flat and the other side says it is round, and the media in an effort not to appear politically biased report it as a disputed fact. If you think that example is too wild, think about climate change, or maybe wait until the US election where Trump is one of the two candidates. Was Obama a US citizen: views differ.

What we get as a result is a bias against the facts. In the case of Labour and the deficit, because Labour chose fatefully not to challenge the Conservatives on this, the media takes this as confirmation that it must be true rather than checking the facts themselves, or shy away from presenting the facts because that would be seen as ‘too political’. Myth then becomes a fact that even some Labour MPs start believing, and when someone actually stands up for the facts they are assumed to be dishonest or a slightly mad professor. So the BBC fails in its mission, which is to inform and educate as well as entertain.

I was going to advertise my talk in Bristol at this point, which will also explain how this failure played a major role in the 2015 election, but I see that it is now sold out. If there is sufficient demand I will write up what I say and publish it here. 

Time to rewrite a bit of oral history

I have written at great length about the myth that the Labour government created the need for austerity, or as George Osborne likes to put it, how he has had to clear up the mess that Labour created. Here he is again, in an exchange with Yvette Cooper yesterday. And I long for the day that after he, or any other Conservative, repeats this line, someone has the courage to reply: “that is total bollocks”. This bit of oral [1] history has survived for too long.

I will not go again through all the details (for that see these two posts), because a simple picture tells you all you need to know. Here is the UK government deficit, as a percentage of GDP, since 1970.

The deficit in the five years before the global financial crisis was around the average over this whole period. It shoots up in 2008/9 and 2009/10 for one simple reason: the UK, like most other countries, experienced the largest recession since WWII. Osborne has been clearing up the mess left by a major recession, which left UK GDP around 15% below its pre-recession trend. And the real irony is that he has done nothing to fix that very real problem, but instead obsesses about one of its symptoms.

Yet as long as this myth continues to go unchallenged, Osborne can portray Labour as unfit to run the national finances. As long as it goes unchallenged, a large section of voters will continue to believe that austerity was Labour’s fault. I think most people now agree that Labour made a huge tactical mistake when they failed to combat this narrative five years ago. But as this little exchange from yesterday shows, the damage to Labour the myth has done is not going to go away because the Conservatives will not stop repeating the myth.

I therefore have a suggestion. John McDonnell should send a copy of this chart to every Labour MP and tell them to always keep a copy with them. The next time the ‘clearing up the mess they left’ line is repeated, they should respond not by changing the subject or looking sheepish. They should produce the chart and say that it is just not true. The deficit went up because of the recession following a global financial crisis, and this chart proves it. [2]

[1] I know I'm abusing the meaning of 'oral history' here, but I do so because the written history is very different. The few scholarly papers on fiscal policy under the Labour government are consistent with the data and facts.

[2] I am also happy to suggest simple knock downs to possible responses. For example:

C: The recession was caused by inadequate financial regulation during Labour’s watch.

L: But you were constantly arguing for less regulation at the time.

C: IMF/OECD data show huge cyclically adjusted deficits in the pre-recession years

L: Extremely dubious (the OBR who use real data to cyclically adjust do not have this, and few signs of a huge boom at the time), and pure hindsight (both groups suggested otherwise at the time).

C: Everyone knows Gordon Brown bent the rules and missed his targets

L:  George Osborne has missed 3 of his own targets. Of course policy was not perfect under Labour, but that does not change the fact that the deficit more than tripled in size between 2007 and 2009, and that was all down to the recession.

C: Labour did nothing to tackle the deficit in their last two years in office, when George Osborne was saying they should.
L: You are right, and we make no apology for it. In 2009 the UK, along with the US, Germany and China, undertook a fiscal stimulus, which George Osborne argued against. Every serious economist agrees that helped prevent the recession being even worse than it was. Which means if Osborne had been Chancellor in 2009, UK unemployment would have risen by more and real wages would have fallen even more.

UK flood prevention: the missing billion

2007 saw very bad flooding in the UK. A report was commissioned from Michael Pitt (no longer available on a government website, but available here (pdf), HT @FiDaisyG) which stated:

ES.12 The scale of the problem is, as we know, likely to get worse. We are not sure whether last summer’s events were a direct result of climate change, but we do know that events of this kind are expected to become more frequent. The scientific analysis we have commissioned as part of this Review (published alongside this Report) shows that climate change has the potential to cause even more extreme scenarios than were previously considered possible. The country must adapt to increasing flood risk.

The Labour government responded to this review by substantially increasing central government spending on flood prevention. It reached a peak in 2010/11, the last year of the relevant spending review. Subsequently the coalition government, as part of its austerity policy, cut back on spending, going directly against the spirit of the Pitt review.

It was obvious following 2007 that substantially more money needed to be spent on flood prevention as a result of climate change, and the Labour government acted on that knowledge. The Coalition government ignored it. Suppose that instead of cutting, the coalition government had allowed spending to increase each year by 2% from that 2010/11 level: a very modest rise given the nature of the risk. That would have meant that by 2015/16 around £500 million more in 15/16 prices would have been spent in total, which is about three quarters of the total amount spent this year. As 2014/15 is acknowledged as a one-off positive blip, by 2020/21 under Conservative plans we will probably be looking at missing expenditure near £1 billion. And that is despite all the flooding that has occurred since 2011, some of the damage from which must be the result of this missing spending. That is a huge spending gap created by the Conservatives.

Spending on Flood Protection, 15/16 prices: actual (source DEFRA) and hypothetical 2% growth path

I still find it remarkable that no one has held the government to account for this huge failure. Flooding is currently costing at least £1 billion a year. Even if filling that spending gap had prevented only a small proportion of these current and future costs, it would have produced a handsome return, as well as avoiding a great deal of individual heartbreak. Yet the government continues to get away with talking about unprecedented rainfall, as if no one had thought this might happen. John Deben, Chairman of the Statutory Committee on Climate Change, tweets

"Surprising no broadcaster seems to have sought to discuss advice on flooding and adaptation to climate change given to Government"

The Labour Party too appears to have made no attempt to coordinate a media attack on the government, in an area where their own record was exemplary. DEFRA secretary of state at the time that Labour increased flood defences was Hilary Benn, who is MP for Leeds (one of the areas affected by flooding) and Ed Miliband was the minister in charge of energy and climate change. The current DEFRA shadow minister is Kerry McCarthy, and all I could find from her on flooding was this and this.

Speaking about the latest flooding, David Cameron said “We will do everything we can to help people in this, their hour of need.” It is a shame that no one seems capable of asking him why he added to these needs, by ignoring the growing evidence (including the Pitt review) that more money needed to be spent on flood defences.   

Austerity, the Treasury and Spending under Labour

Philip Stephens of the Financial Times lashes into George Osborne’s plans for more fiscal austerity over the next five years. He argues that cuts of the order of magnitude proposed, on top of previous cuts, can only harm public services that people want or need. He writes “The really intelligent thing to do, though, would be to defer or, better still, abandon his silly fiscal target.” Bravo to that.

He also says something else which I found interesting. He writes Osborne has “been egged on by a Treasury obsessed with expiating its sins of carelessness and hubris during the pre-crash years.” As I think I have said before, one of the interesting and as far as I know untold tales about UK austerity is the extent to which it is encouraged or discouraged by senior management in the Treasury. I raise this in ignorance of which it is: I have on a few occasions seen senior civil servants defend austerity, but that is their job, and I’m not a good enough mind reader to know whether their heart was in it.

I have, however, made a general point about finance ministries and independent central banks. Delegating macroeconomic stabilisation means that finance ministries no longer need to have so much in house expertise on how the macroeconomy works. Furthermore in the UK the establishment of the OBR, which took over responsibility from the Treasury for macro and aggregate fiscal forecasting, reduced the need for that expertise still further. This means that in any contest between controlling spending (which finance ministries always have to do) and looking after the broader economy, it has become more likely that the economy will lose out.

Which inclines me to the view that Treasury management had a more encouraging than discouraging role, but it would be interesting to know if this is right. I was also struck by the phrase “sins of carelessness and hubris during the pre-crash years.” At first sight this suggests that the Treasury allowed Labour to embark on a large increase in public spending as a share of output, much of which was waste that could be reduced by greater efficiency. This relates to another point you often hear, which is that 2010-2015 austerity was largely painless.

Let’s fact check the numbers. When Gordon Brown took over the Treasury, total spending was around 37% of GDP. By following existing plans this fell to about 36%, but by financial year 2007/8 it was 40% of GDP. That is where we should stop if we want to exclude the impact of the recession. An increase worth 3% of GDP certainly sounds significant. However public net investment in 1997 was unsustainably low at 0.5%. If we just look at current spending it shows an increase of only 2% of GDP between 1997 and 2007.

Was that increase waste and inefficiency? If we look at the share of NHS spending over that period, it rose by around 2.5%. In other words, the increased share of government spending was largely accounted for by higher NHS spending. That was not Treasury carelessness and hubris, but a deliberate policy decision.

One final point. There are two ways that you can squeeze the public sector without much visible pain, besides greater efficiency. First you can cut investment, which no one notices until much later (unless you are unlucky enough to have a lot of rain). Second, you can cut spending on groups who do not have a public voice. Those who find they are excluded or reassessed for benefits, or the elderly who have had their support from their local authority cut, would not call past austerity painless. It seems that painlessness, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.      

What are ABC to do?

This is quite a long piece about politics, that I suspect no one will like. I have said before that I depart from my comfort zone of macroeconomics when I think an important point is being missed from the public debate. In this case the second sentence may follow from the first.

What should the strategy be for the great majority of Labour MPs who did not vote for Jeremy Corbyn (ABC=anyone but Corbyn)? They can continue to expound their misery to receptive political journalists. They can continue to stand aghast at the dislike that some now in power hold for their predecessors. But for a group that has lost two crucial elections within the space of a few months, they really need a more positive focus.

Tony Payne, director of SPERI at Sheffield University, has a suggestion which I think has a great deal of merit. They should “come to terms fully, properly and honestly with Labour’s record in government under Blair and Brown between 1997 and 2010”. This is not in some kind of masochistic, ‘what we got wrong’ kind of exercise, but rather to recognise what that Labour government got right. I was part of a group of academics that looked at economic policy under Labour, and the sense I got was that there were an awful lot of positives to note. But in looking at the negatives, one point that should be recognised is that these (e.g. Iraq, not enough banking regulation, perhaps not enough local support for inward migration) did not come from any tendency to be too populist. Instead rather the opposite.

I’ll come back to that in a second, but actually I decided to write this in response to another post by Tony Payne, which could perhaps be described as a lament for the centre-left. You can get the flavour from this passage:

“what underpins and ultimately characterises centrist politics (whether in its left or right variant) is a rejection of what I see as the easy moral simplicities of populist politics in favour of the complex, awkward and often unsatisfying and unsatisfactory world of governing, of trying to find the best way through the most difficult problems, even if that involves compromise. The latter is of course the dirtiest of words in the lexicon of the populist left (and right).”

I think that speaks to where a lot of the ABCs are right now. They say we tried to be sensible in the face of difficult problems, but we were outflanked on both sides by the moral simplicities of populist politics. I suspect (and to be fair Tony Payne does not make this link) it also passes as some sort of explanation as to why ABC lost two elections. They were the realists who lost out to the idealists and populists. As an explanation I think it is completely inadequate, and to be frank comes close to denial.

Let me take my own subject as an example, partly because austerity is also central to much else. In the end what quite a few of the ABCs wanted to do was to junk the complex and perhaps awkward truths of how to run a sensible fiscal policy in favour of the populist politics of talking about the nation’s credit card. Osborne’s fiscal charter is not supported by a single economist I know, but many of the ABC’s have advocated supporting it. In this case what those ABCs have been doing is adopting - or at least flirting with - populist politics, but the popular politics of the right rather than the left.

That in turns comes from what seems to be the dominant mantra of the ABCs, which is that only they are serious about trying to win elections. That is why, we are told, they have to adopt the populist policies of the other side, because only that way can they win. Notice first how different this is from the noble Weberian concept of the centre that Tony Payne puts forward. Notice second that these populist policies seem to come from the right rather than the left: whenever there is a populist policy from the left (like renationalising rail), then it becomes time to cast aside populism and be ‘sensible’.

I have struggled to understand what is going on here. But the thought that I keep coming back to is regulatory capture. This is the idea that the regulators of an industry become captured by the industry itself: by its objectives, values and methods. In some cases the reason for capture is straightforward (revolving doors), but in some cases it reflects the fact that regulators cannot match their industry in terms of knowledge and analysis. My idea is that in this case instead of an industry you have a Westminster discourse which, under the coalition, was dominated by the thinking of the centre-right. Most Labour MPs simply didn’t have the time or resources to find alternatives to this, and gradually became hostage to this discourse. As Paul Krugman might say, after a time all they hear are the views of Very Serious People.

Part of this Westminster discourse involves the tactic of exclusion for individuals and ideas that are deemed to be outlandish. (Outside the Overton window, if you like.) I have experienced that on a personal level recently: imagine a biologist being told that they would be ‘branded’ if they gave technical advice to a major political party!? Rather more important it leads some politicians on the centre left with strong skills and expertise reluctant to sit at the same table as those in their own party with more radical views, even when those holding more radical views have every incentive to seek compromise. You have to ask who benefits from this.

It is often said in politics that voters vote for and against incumbents, not oppositions. I doubt very much if Labour party members voted for Corbyn because they had suddenly become converted wholesale to a Bennite type platform. Instead they voted against what the parliamentary party had become. I think recognising their responsibility for their own failure is the first step to recovery. I said that the ABCs would do well to follow Tony Payne’s advice and focus on what the Labour government did right. One of those things was the regime of tax credits, which cut poverty and made it easier for people to work. They might then reflect on the reasoning, forces and processes that led so many of them this July to abstain on the bill that cut those credits.

The centre left needs to retrace its steps as a first stage to recovery, and learn from the many things it got right when in government. In the UK and elsewhere in Europe it is important this happens sooner rather than later. Hopefully in doing this it will rediscover positive virtues and ideals that go beyond simply a negation of populism. I strongly suspect a strong political centre (left or right) is vital for good governance, and that both the UK and Europe is suffering from its absence.   

SNP distortions, again

Judging by pageviews, my most widely read post ever was on Scottish independence, and its title was ‘Scotland and the SNP: Fooling yourselves and deceiving others’. I was extremely critical of the fiscal claims made by the SNP. I wrote

“There are many laudable reasons to campaign for Scottish independence. But how far should those who passionately want independence be prepared to go to achieve that goal? Should they, for example, deceive the Scottish people about the basic economics involved? That seems to be what is happening right now. The more I look at the numbers, the clearer it becomes that over the next five or ten years there would [be] more, not less, fiscal austerity under independence.”

That was half a year ago, and of course lower oil prices have only strengthened that view. But more recently it has been refreshing to hear Nicola Sturgeon make the case against UK austerity. So when I was asked by The Conversation to fact check this statement by her:

“In the last five years, austerity has undermined our public services, lowered the living standards of working people, pushed more children into poverty and held back economic growth.”

I was happy to provide a report which concluded:

“Nicola Sturgeon’s statement on the economic impact of austerity on the UK is correct, with no qualifications.”

Today the SNP put out a press release on the Conversation report. Unfortunately it contained the following comment from Stewart Hosie, Deputy Leader of the SNP and Treasury spokesperson:

''Professor Wren-Lewis reflects what many other experts and indeed members of the public know all too well - that Tory/Lib Dem austerity has done deep harm to the country's recovery from the Labour recession.”

Oh dear – ‘the Labour recession’. That would be the global financial crisis that originated with US subprime mortgages! Calling this the Labour recession is just stupid, and is something I would never say. It is very unfortunate (and I hope it is just a misfortunate) that Stewart Hosie appeared to suggest that I had said or implied that. Whatever the intention, it indicates that at least some in the SNP are still in the business of making highly misleading statements to advance their cause.

While on the subject of the SNP and this election, let me make one final point, just in case any prospective SNP voters read this. In the quite likely event that the Conservatives get more seats than Labour, but less seats than Labour and the SNP combined, in a situation where either side would need LibDem support Nick Clegg has made it clear he will talk to the Conservatives first. That will almost certainly lead to the current coalition government continuing. Clegg’s reasoning for doing this makes little sense, but the SNP cannot influence Clegg’s decision, and I suspect nor can his party even if they were minded to.

If that comes to pass, then every vote for the SNP rather than Labour that loses Labour seats becomes a vote to continue with the current government. That is not an opinion, but a factual statement. So, to be consistent with his own logic, I think Stewart Hosie would have to call this election result the SNP’s Tory-LibDem second term.