Inflation

Ten points about the Ed Balls interview

Ed Balls gets personal in his interview with the Times (£) today, but not in the way you might expect. For most of the piece he dwells on what the paper calls his “hidden vulnerability” – the effort to contain his stammer. And from there on, the politics seems a touch softer than usual. There are surprisingly few overt attacks on his opponents, and those that make the cut are considerably less violent that we’re used too. Which isn’t to say that the interview lacks politics. No sirree. Here’s a ten-point selection of some of the political highlights (so to speak), with my added comments:      1) Doubling back

Exposing the con man

  To the chagrin of CoffeeHousers, I have long rated Ed Balls and his abilities. He has a degree of brilliance, albeit tragically deployed in the services of a destructive economic agenda. But as we welcome him back, it’s worth reminding ourselves that his abilities are of a specific type. He understands economics (even though he did PPE) but his speciality is in creative accounting. His only tactic is to spend, borrow and cover both up by cooking the books. He is a trickster, not an economist. More Arthur Daley than Arthur Laffer. In my News of the World column today (£) I say he is dangerous to Labour as

How things are different now that Balls is shadow chancellor

The timing could hardly have been more resonant. On the day that Tony Blair is paraded, once again, in front of the Iraq Inquiry, Team Brown is firmly back in charge of the Labour party. For, I’m sure you’ve noticed CoffeeHousers, three of the four great shadow offices of state are occupied by former members of the Brown coterie: Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper. The fourth belongs to someone who doesn’t sit easily in either half of the TB-GB divide: Douglas Alexander. The question, of course, is what this means for Labour’s economic policy. And the answer according to Miliband is “nothing much”. The Labour leader has been

Miliband can’t credibly complain about both inflation and growth

Today’s shocking inflation figures have sparked a fascinating debate. I laid out my take earlier, and I thought CoffeeHousers may appreciate a different perspective. Matthew Hancock MP is a member of the Public Accounts Committee, former economist at the Bank of England and former chief of staff to George Osborne. Fraser Nelson. Last week, growth. This week, inflation. Ed Miliband is complaining about both. But the trouble is: the two can’t be taken in isolation. For the main weapon against inflation is for the Bank of England to raise interest rates. Yet the main weapon to support growth is for the Bank of England to keep interest rates lower for

Fraser Nelson

The inflation crisis deepens

How big does inflation have to get before our politicians admit that it’s a problem? Once again, it has “surprised” on the upside – the CPI index stood at 3.7 percent for December, against a supposed target of 2.0 percent. And the RPI index, which the nation called “inflation” until Gordon Brown asked the media to use CPI instead, is running at 4.8 percent – almost twice its former target of 2.5 percent. That is the painfully high figure to which George Osborne has just added a juicy VAT increase, which is bound to take CPI above 4 percent. Inflation has been above target for three of the last four

How it’s going right for Ed Miliband

Ed Miliband has had three launches in three months – but, much as I hate to admit it, things are getting better for him. His party are now consistently ahead in the polls, so in my News of the World column today I look at what’s going right. Here are my main points: 1) Cameron’s embrace has, alas, proved toxic for the Lib Dems. I have been impressed by Nick Clegg since he entered government. I’d like to see him rewarded for the tough decisions he took, and in more ways than being named ‘politician of the year’ by the Threadneedle/Spectator awards. But it just isn’t happening. The ‘merger’ model

King’s inflation nation

If Mervyn King and his team are trying to deal with Britain’s debt crisis by letting inflation rip, I do wish they would just say so – rather than go through this monthly farce. Yet again, base rates have been left at an absurd 0.5 per cent, in an economy expected to grow by a full 2 percent this year but with inflation at 3.3 percent or 4.8 percent depending on how you measure it. Petrol prices are bad, but now they are matched with soaring prices elsewhere – from train travel to groceries. Here’s a list of some price rises confronting shoppers:   Add Osborne’s VAT rise to non-food

Cameron sells the coalition’s economic policy

David Cameron was on Marr this morning (with yours truly doing the warm-up paper review), talking about the “tough and difficult year” ahead. Others have been through the interview for its general content. What interested me was its economic content: not the most sexy subject in the world, I know, but, as Alan Johnson unwittingly demonstrated on Sky this morning, the Labour Party looks unable to scrutinise the government’s economic policy. Anyway, here are ten observations:   1) “Because of the budget last year, we are lifting 800,000 people out of income tax, we’re raising income tax thresholds. That will help all people who are basic rate taxpayers.” Thanks to

Responding to CoffeeHousers on inflation

Inflation is one of the most important topics around right how so I thought I’d respond to CoffeeHousers’ comments in a post rather than the original thread. Nick and Gareth Sutcliffe say that inflation is due to global forces (and they’re right insofar as metals, food, etc are all going up). But if the money supply is managed properly, this needn’t push consumer prices too high – most other countries have stable inflation, as the first chart in my post shows: Britain is in Greek territory. My point: the British level of inflation is exceptional. Greenslime suggests price controls – a very bad idea. Even Marx saw this. The prices

From the archives: Protesting the price hikes

The week began with grim projections about petrol prices, and has been coloured by the twin topics of tax and inflation since. So, a decent opportunity to look back on the fuel protests of 2000, in the latest shot from the Spectator archives. Here’s a piece from the time, by Coffee House regular, and Spectator theatre critic, Lloyd Evans:   Do you want a smack in the mouth?, Lloyd Evans, The Spectator, 16 September 2000 As I write this, the gravest crisis in our island story is unfolding before my eyes. The great four-star emergency of September 2000. Where it will lead, no one can tell. Frequent bulletins from BBC

Fraser Nelson

King’s ransom

How much bigger does Britain’s inflation have to become before Mervyn King realises it’s a problem? The VAT rise should have lifted prices by 2.1 percent – but shopkeepers over Britain have been applying far larger rises. Why? Because one of the most important factors in economics – expectation of inflation – is back. People are bracing themselves for another year of rising heat, transport and staff costs – so retailers hike up prices in anticipation, and a vicious spiral of inflation begins. The Retail Price Index was up 4.8 percent last November, and Consumer Price Index 3.3 percent. The price of this failure of monetary policy is paid by

Stable house prices won’t happen by themselves

Grant Shapps has impressed in the housing brief, arguing that house prices rising faster than wages is not a good thing (with which Policy Exchange’s report, Making Housing Affordable, agreed). He has probably been encouraged by the fact that some recent polls have shown even a majority of owners want prices to stop rising. Perhaps having your kids live with you until they are 40 just isn’t a popular option? More so, rising house prices only benefit those who downsize (now rare) or own multiple properties; and in the wider economy it mostly discourages productive investment and encourages borrowing – hardly good things.   But while Shapps’s aim is laudable,

Miliband swings into action by warning of inflation

The seasonal interlude has ended and Ed Miliband is sallying north to Oldham East. He will resuscitate old favourites from 2010: progressive cuts, fairness and a government bent of an ideological mission: but he will illustrate his point with reference to tomorrow’s VAT rise. Miliband will say: ‘Today we start to see the Tory-led agenda move from Downing Street to your street. At midnight VAT goes up, hitting people’s living standards, small businesses and jobs. The VAT rise is the most visible example of what we mean when we say the government is going too far and too fast, because it’s clear that it will slow growth and hit jobs.’

Rising costs: a problem for the public and the coalition in 2011

Ne’er mistake correlation with cause, I know. But, during the Brown premiership, the correlation between petrol prices and poll ratings was still pretty striking. Mike Smithson graphed it early last year, but the basic story was this: the Tories enjoyed their biggest poll lead over Labour when petrol prices were at their highest, and Labour closed the gap to only 1 percent when petrol prices were at their lowest. At the very least, it gives us a hypothesis to work from: prices up, the government suffers; prices down, the government recovers. And it looks as though we’ll be able to test that hypothesis soon enough. Today’s Express reports that –

A debt-filled New Year

The Spectator is out today, with a cover story that I would commend to CoffeeHousers. Failure to learn from history usually condemns a nation to repeating its mistakes. That’s why we should be nervous that no one seems to have worked out what caused the crash. Little wonder: the guys doing the analysis are the same guys who failed to spot the crisis building up, so it suits everyone to blame the banks. “How was I to know,” says everyone from Gordon Brown to Joe the Pundit, “that they were doing all these complex debt swap thingies? They deceived everyone, the bounders.” There is another analysis – and it’s our

The Big Squeeze

The media pack is often blind to an impending political car-crash.  For instance, very few in Westminster, or the media, noticed the scrapping of the 10p tax band until the screech of twisting steel turned heads. The same is happening now in relation to living standards. The media and political establishment are yet to wake up to the fact that working families in Britain are about to become poorer (though hat-tip to Allister Heath for being quick off the mark on this front). The gathering wisdom is that, with the recession now behind us, household budgets will start to recover.  We have just published a new report – Squeezed Britain 

The kiss of death | 19 November 2010

Oh dear. On Wednesday night, we at The Spectator saw David Cameron handing Lord Young his Spectator/Threadneedle Parliamentarian of the Year in the category of Peer of the Year. “Over the decades,” said yours truly, “Prime Ministers have come to value his advice. As Thatcher put it: ‘other people bring me problems, David brings me solutions.’” Not any more – David has brought him a problem, followed by a resignation. Less than 48 hours after picking-up our award, his political career appears to be at an end.   It is true that there are some people who have had a “good recession”. That is: faced no danger of losing their

Living costs – where the real threat lies

Déjà-lu is a feeling that Spectator subscribers become familiar with. Part of the reason for subscribing (which you can now do from £12, including free iPad access) is to get ahead of the competition – and read today what the newspapers will be saying tomorrow. We’re delighted that the cover story of Thursday’s edition, by Allister Heath, is the main OpEd slot in the Daily Mail today – and with good reason. All of the focus has been on the cuts, 500,000 jobs to go etc. As CoffeeHousers know, jobs are not expected to be the issue over the next few years: the same forecasts suggest 1.5m jobs will be created.

Generous settlements mean gigantic cuts elsewhere

I hear that the Department of Transport’s settlement is another one that is not as bad as expected. The capital statement is, apparently, positively reasonable. George Osborne’s commitment to infrastructure spending has meant that a good number of transport projects have been saved. On rail fares, I hear they will indeed go up significantly. But not by as much as the doomsday 30 to 40 percent scenario reported in the Sunday papers. Nearly all the settlements we have heard about so far have been less bad than expected. There must be, given that Osborne is sticking to the cuts schedule set out in the budget, some departments that are going

Where are the cuts?

John Redwood has entered the debate with a unique argument: spending isn’t being cut. He points to figures in the Budget which show “current” spending rising from around £600 billion now to around £700 billion in 2015. As Alex says, that suggests an increase of 15 percent over five years – hardly what anyone would describe as a cut. And there’s a similar picture for “total” spending, which will rise from around £670 billion to £737.5 billion.   Yet it’s worth pointing out that Redwood isn’t using inflation-adjusted figures (aka, “real terms” figures). If you do that, then there are cuts to be seen in both current and total spending: