Economy

Abel fights back

One of the hardest tasks of any opposition is to gain the trust and credibility to run the economy. After what happened over the last few years, Labour have an enormous credibility gap. Ed Balls’ decision to oppose any measure to deal with the deficit has reduced Labour’s economic credibility still further. So too has the two Eds’ decision to make attacks based on mis-truths, like denying there was a structural deficit before the election; or attacking the coalition for cutting bank taxes, when it is actually putting them up; and like backing another bonus tax, despite opposing it at the election, and despite Alistair Darling’s careful explanation of why

A princely problem

Tonight’s Six o’clock news had a long package on Prince Andrew that ended with Laura Kuenssberg reporting from Downing Street on the government’s attitude to the prince. The fact that the government is now so much part of this story is due to an unforced error on its part.   It was the briefing yesterday about how if more came out then Andrew would have to resign as trade envoy that pushed the government right into the middle of this sorry story. This set journalistic hares running and had everyone demanding to know what the government’s position was. The government, which had got involved in this story more through cock-up

Osborne’s political economy

George Osborne’s speech to the Tory spring conference today showed the classic left-right way in which he wants to frame the political debate about the economy ahead of the Budget on the 23rd of March.  In a move straight out of the election-winning centre-right playbook of the 80s, he attacked Balls and Miliband as “Two left-wing politicians who don’t understand anyone who wants to get up and get on, anyone who want a better life for their family, anyone who want to create wealth, and start a business, and create jobs, and leave something to their children.” He tried to portray the Conservatives as the antithesis of this, as the

The economic case for HS2 explained

Matthew Sinclair’s piece on high-speed rail makes two main criticisms, both of which have already been addressed in the material published earlier this week for the consultation – but I would like to explain our approach again here.   First, Matthew criticises our forecasts. He would prefer us not to forecast demand beyond 2026, but HS2 would be a long term investment and would bring benefits for successive generations over many decades. It would be absurd to forecast only 10 years ahead. Therefore, we have taken a longer term but still realistic view. Demand for long distance rail travel more than doubled between 1994 and 2009 – an annual growth

Plurality or not?

With all the provisos attached to News Corp’s takeover of BSkyB, opposition to the deal has surely now been diluted. But there are, perhaps, two groups who can still legitimately complain about the outcome.   Firstly, those of us who believe that unrestricted freedom of speech is vital in the TV broadcasting arena. The Murdoch empire has had to surrender its news channel in order to, essentially, buy a profitable platform for broadcasting sport and movies. This is seriously disturbing for anyone who feels that the BBC’s output of ‘neutral news’ needs to be challenged. The only major independent broadcaster – ITV – gave up long ago with their own

The strong business case for HS2

Matthew Sinclair argues that the government’s plans for high-speed rail would not create enough jobs to justify the government spending money on the project. But his argument is disingenuous as he is not comparing like for like. He is comparing predictions about jobs created directly by high-speed rail with predictions about jobs created indirectly by investment in the wider economy. The 40,000 jobs created directly by high-speed rail are simply the tip of the iceberg – tens of thousands more will be created by the investment boom in the cities the new line will link up. These are the jobs being created by the “wider economy” that he mentions, but

Osborne goes on the offensive

Attack, attack, attack. That’s the temper of George Osborne’s article for the Guardian this morning, which sets about Labour’s economic credibility with a ferocious sort of glee. Perhaps the best passage is where he asks how many times Labour can spend their ubiquitous “bank tax,” but this is more pertinent to the recent debate: “Where does all this leave Ed Miliband’s newfound enthusiasm for the “squeezed middle”? Let’s pass over his failure in every interview to define it – his last effort included around 90% of taxpayers. Where we can all agree is that these are difficult times for family incomes. There are two root causes. One is global: rises

The need to address National Pay Bargaining

National Pay Bargaining is one of the major impediments to rebalancing the national economy and improving the quality of public services. But as Julian Astle, the head of the Liberal think tank Centre Forum, notes the coalition is doing little about it. It knows that the public sector unions will go to the wall for national pay bargaining and so are holding off. Gordon Brown flirted with doing something about national pay bargaining, announcing a review of it in the 2003 Budget. But he then backed away from the issue. One area where the coalition is chipping away at national pay bargaining is schools. Academies and free schools have the

Three charts that complicate a simple focus on growth

GDP growth figures have become the barometer of choice for commentators trying to tell the political weather – a good measure of how the public will eventually fall in the faceoff between Osborne and Balls. The story goes that a return to sustained growth will mean a return to rising living standards.  That means a vindication of the government’s position, and a victory for the Chancellor. As a simple story, that makes sense if the pressures now facing Britain’s households are straightforwardly growth-related – if, in other words, we’re in a post-recession hangover that will vanish when growth returns. But there’s now mounting evidence of a deeper problem for living

Why Ed Balls shouldn’t brag if the OBR downgrades its growth forecasts

Some speculation (£) today that the Office for Budget Responsibility will shortly downgrade its 2011 growth forecast – and hence the growth forecast in next month’s Budget. If so, then you can expect Ed Balls to crow on and on about it. He did, after all, prime the attack in his recent clash with George Osborne across the dispatch box: “With consumer confidence falling, with inflation rising, with no bank lending agreement, no plan for jobs, no plan for growth, no plan B – does he really expect us to believe he can meet this forecast for economic growth this year or will he have to stand here at the

Inflation: how the nightmare will continue

Each month, inflation numbers come out and seem to surprise everyone – except the chosen few who have access to the forecasts. So I thought we’d share with CoffeeHousers what is all too seldom put on public record: forecasts for inflation and base interest rates. It might be useful to anyone thinking of taking out a fixed rate mortgage deal. These forecasts are from Michael Saunders at CitiGroup, whom I regard as one of the best in the business. Pretty much every analyst thinks that interest rates will soon start a relentless march back to 5 per cent, so these 3 per cent fixed rate deals we’re getting right now

It’s the Q1 2011 growth figures that matter now

The Office for National Statistics’ preliminary figures for Q4 growth, released a few weeks ago, were a curious beast. They they were, suggesting that because of a snow-laden December our economy had started shrinking again, to the tune of -0.5 per cent. And yet so many other indicators were doing rather nicely: from activity in the services sector to the Exchequer’s tax take. Many people, myself included, suspected it was only a matter of time before the ONS revised that -0.5 figure into more positive territory. Now time has passed, and the ONS has just revised the Q4 figure downwards, not upwards. Their preliminary figure wasn’t quite right, they say.

What price a fuel duty stabiliser?

Last we heard, the government was considering what it should, and could, do to suppress rising fuel prices. I wonder whether they have now pencilled something into March’s Red Book. You see, after a swell of speculative fear triggered by events in the Middle East, the cost of oil is going up, up, up. Brent Crude touched $120 a barrel yesterday, the highest price since August 2008, although it eventually settled to around $111. Some observers predict it will soon exceed the previous record price of $150. Naturally, this threatens to unstitch the delicate fabric of the global economy – drastically rising oil prices could bring pervasive stagflation in their

The EU should impose sanctions on Gaddafi’s Libya

The EU spends €460 million a year in operational costs alone on its new foreign policy department, the External Action Service, headed up by Catherine Ashton. This body – created by the Lisbon Treaty – was Europe’s ‘great white hope’ for the global stage, finally allowing it to speak with one voice and therefore giving it leverage where it previously had none.   It hasn’t quite worked out that way. Caught between Cairo and Tripoli, the EU has received yet another reminder that its bureaucracies and institutions cannot magically replace 27 individual foreign policies, as EU leaders continue their bickering over what to do.   The EU’s response to the

Going for growth

The government says it has a growth strategy. Speaking to the Confederation of British Industry’s annual conference last October, the prime minister said his government would adopt a “forensic, relentless focus on growth” in the coming years. The strategy has three elements: creating a framework for enterprise and business investment; directing resources into areas where Britain has a competitive advantage – such as wind technology; and making it easier for new companies and innovations to flourish. But for all this and the denunciation of Gordon Brown’s legacy, the coalition still seems to be reading from a core part of Labour’s pre-crisis script: businesses are spoken of primarily as agents for

The 50p tax in action

Today, we have seen the 50p tax in action: reflected in January’s bumper tax receipts. A jubilant John Rentoul has just tweeted: “Where is Fraser Nelson when you need him? The 50p income tax rate has brought in a ton of money. He said it would probably reduce revenue.” He is absolutely right – but not for the reasons he thinks. Were John self-employed, he’d know that the tax paid last month was in respect of the 2009-10 tax year – when the top rate of tax was 40p. Of course, many of the super-rich are on PAYE – but that has happened since last April. It doesn’t explain a

Fraser Nelson

Osborne shouldn’t spend the extra money

Lucky old George Osborne. The British economy is not in “meltdown,” but churning out tax revenue like a fruit machine. Figures out from the ONS today show that the tax haul for January alone was £58.4 billion – pushing the public finances into a surplus £3.7 billion for that month (an almighty £3.6 billion more than expected). If this rate continues (no reason why not, seeing as we’re all getting drunk on Mervyn King’s underpriced debt again), then Citi estimates he will have £8 billion more to play with than expected in the current financial year. So what will he do? Osborne’s decision will tell us plenty about what type

British jobs for whom?

Immigration isn’t a topic much discussed nowadays, because it’s one where the Tories and Lib Dems don’t agree. That’s a shame. Because there’s an urgent problem to be fixed in the British labour market: that every time the economy grows, it sucks in immigrant workers. If this dysfunction continues, it will finish Cameron. The News of the World (where yours truly is a columnist (£)) has today looked at the latest figures for this. I reprint them for CoffeeHousers below. They show that during that disastrous fourth quarter in 2010, where the economy shrank by 0.5 percent, the number of employed British-born people fell by 110,000. As grim as you’d

Tinkering with solar panel subsidy risks making bad policy worse

The fallout from Chris Huhne’s sudden review of the government’s system of subsidies for small-scale renewable energy gathers momentum. Solar firms, who built business cases on the system of subsidies, are threatening judicial review over the Energy Secretary’s change of direction. So why did the government raise concerns about the policy? Apparently, because it has been too successful. The scheme encourages householders, communities and businesses to cover their roofs in solar panels and erect wind turbines by offering them a generous subsidy for the electricity they produce. It was introduced by the Labour government with three aims: to cut carbon emissions; to help reduce the costs of the technologies; and

Balls’ shrill attack on King

Ed Balls’ irresponsible attack on Mervyn King is a clearly calculated attempt to undermine the Bank of England for Balls’ own narrow political ends. Balls both approved Mervyn King’s appointment and supported King as Governor when he was Chief Economic Adviser to the Treasury. Balls was central to creating the record deficit left by Labour, yet who has no plan for clearing the mess up. Now he is attacking the Governor of the Bank of England for supporting the Government’s plan to deal with the deficit. In what way is it political for the Governor to support the Government? I’d say that’s deeply non-political. By contrast, to play narrow party