2016 – Left foot forward?

As the world slowly completes its recovery from the financial battering that was 2008, we see winners like the UK and US, and losers such as Greece, victims of a dogmatic pursual of policy that defies logic, at the cost of ordinary people.

The social costs of austerity are becoming  apparent here too, and public opinion may start to turn as  enthusiasm for spending cuts falters lining the Chancellor’s road to a surplus with political obstacles, more so when the global economy appears to be a repeat of the previous decade as household debt exceeds pre-crash levels. As it stands however, Osborne is on track, with his journey certainly been aided by a splintered opposition more prone to fight amongst itself and shoot itself in the foot rather than attack the failures of the current government.

It’s not all doom and gloom though,  new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn emerged relatively unscathed from his trial by media-stoked fire as he was catapulted from obscurity to opposition leader. Next year promises to be an interesting period in UK politics, as he continues to defy the expectations of the political class, and in doing so providing an alternative to Westminster orthodoxy and austerity.

Across the world we see similar events to Corbyn’s meteoric rise and an increase in anti-austerity movements. In Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada led by Justin Trudeau took power, on a mandate of increased deficit spending. Closer to home we had the rise of Syriza (now broken), and now Podemos in Spain. Whether this momentum can be converted into a political vehicle to bring about change will be a question for 2016, as a failure to find answers to global issues such as economic inequality, migration and terrorism (all of which in my opinion are linked to some degree) will allow right-wing populists such as Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen to gain traction and use fear of the ‘other’ to promote narratives that divide people.

Judging by the unpredictable nature of 2015, 2016 is likely to surprise to carry just as many surprises. For most of us, all we can do is grab a seat, watch, and hope the world doesn’t end in flames.

mj popcorn


Austerity rhetoric has chained the Conservatives

The ONS recently released their initial Q3 GDP growth rates for the UK, showing a fall of 0.2% from Q2 to 0.5%. The third consecutive quarter of declining growth serves to highlight the risk posed to the growth of the UK economy by Osborne’s insistence on cutting public spending in order to reach a fiscal surplus, an idea increasingly seeming to be founded on politcal, rather than economic principles.

The somewhat shaky recovery from the Great Recession makes the Chancellor’s stance on tax credits perplexing, though the bill was (fortunately) rejected by the House of Lords. In all fairness I agree that the state should not be topping up private sector wages and the increase in minimum wage (it is nowhere near the living wage, and so refuse Osborne’s rebranding) is a welcome change, but does not change the reality that the cuts are still too deep and disproportionally affect the most vulnerable.

The cutting of tax credits would remove income from low and mid-wage earners, the opposite of what is required to support consumer spending, which is vital in aiding the recovery of the economy. If consumers are able to spend more, company profits increase, promoting business growth and consequently, the hire of new employees and/or wage increases. This in turn simultaneously reduces reliance on social welfare, further increases consumer spending and bolsters government tax receipts from both individuals and businesses.

The US applied this Keynesian approach through several fiscal stimulus packages, the first under Bush immediately after the crash in 2008. The stimulus  provides for tax rebates to low- and middle-income taxpayers, as well as tax incentives to encourage business investment. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 followed and brought $831 billion in investment in a variety of areas including education, health, and social welfare. Met initially with criticism, there is good evidence that government investment had an overall positive (albeit imperfect) effect (1,2) on the US economy. This should have provided assurance to the British government that fiscal spending (provided it was targeted to useful infrastructure) was not as irresponsible as they might have us believe.

Nevertheless austerity is still the path we currently tread, despite evidence of the contractionary effects of austerity, and even IMF warnings about excessive austerity. These views have been echoed by Office of Budget Responsibility, whose research Bill Mitchell looks over to discuss the effects of fiscal stimulus. As a quick summary, the post makes the case for fiscal stimulus based on OBR analysis that suggests the fiscal austerity enacted by the coalition government early in their term was detrimental to growth.

At the end of all this, the Conservatives are somewhat stuck. After unexpectedly winning an election on the mandate of austerity as the fiscally responsible choice (and the Chancellor’s aim of a surplus), any talk of borrowing for a fiscal stimulus package (despite rock-bottom interest rates and oil prices) is politically incompatible with their agenda.

In demonising Labour as the party of overspending and the source of the nation’s financial woes, the Conservatives have politically blocked themselves from a vital tool that could sure up the growth of the UK economy, leaving it exposed to the global economy, and so too (somewhat ironically) his chances of becoming prime minister in 2020.