Those who have spent the last two years arguing against austerity are exhibiting a very palpable sense of vindication. Painful economic data accompanied by the shifting political mood across Europe has led to a pandemic of itoldyousoitis amongst Keynesians and their supporters. “If only they’d listened to Ed B” seems to be the underlying premise of every Labour press release. Even the hawkish IMF is now drafted in as endorsement of the new turn.
No doubt if I was still working for the TUC I’d be joining the party but looking in now from outside, this display seems absurdly premature and potentially dangerous.
Two years ago it was the cheerleaders for austerity who were in clover arguing with forceful confidence that cuts would create the certainty and space the private sector needed to generate growth and jobs. This vision of ‘expansionary fiscal consolidation’ was an over-selling of austerity that failed to take account of the current headwinds and volatility that make the effect of any course of economic action highly unpredictable.
So it is ironic that those urging a fiscal loosening are making precisely the same mistake. Labour in the UK, Hollande in France and Syriza in Greece are all riding an electoral high off the back of the claim that they can create jobs and growth through stimulus and other interventions. In any normal recession they may be right but this is far from a normal recession. You can take your pick of the events which might turn today’s bold stimulus and growth package into tomorrow’s damp squib.
The biggest threat surely has to be another sudden spike in prices possibly driven by unexpectedly strong growth in China or a military conflict in the Middle East. And there is enough political uncertainty closer to home to spring a surprise. It was the result of the Greek elections, of course, which led to the latest crisis of economic confidence. Similar occurrences in Italy or Spain would be felt even more deeply.
Or maybe it is just the sheer depth of our economic funk which would swamp any new package of spending. Indeed, there is little agreement amongst the looseners about how much needs to be spent to kick-start growth. Nor is there agreement about how to actually do the spending. Sooner or later, however, the arguing has to stop and politicians have to plump for one or other set of measures. But given there is so little certainty even amongst the proponents of extra spending, the risk is high that politicians will make the wrong choice and stimulus has little impact or simply takes too long.
The biggest threat to the looseners, however, is the obvious fact that austerity is going to continue even under their watch. The rhetoric of Hollande and Miliband may sound like a bright new dawn awaits but neither plans to significantly alter the path of deficit reduction. Which leaves one wondering whether things will actually feel that different once the new mood turns into real policy.
Many may feel this is little more than the political equivalent of a ‘dog bites man’ story. Politicians over-promise to win votes, fail to deliver, then lose votes at which point the electoral pendulum swings back. Once again, under normal circumstances this conclusion may be fine but these are not normal times. The intensity of the crisis and the resulting suffering is clearly making European voters more receptive to parties once dismissed as fringe. Should stimulus underwhelm so soon after the failure of hard-line austerity, the risk must be a more general collapse in credibility for the centre-ground. An outcome which could be followed by the rapid rise of highly unpredictable and divisive political forces.
As a politician on the up, the temptation is great to emphasise your positive claims and downplay nuance and doubt. There is little premium on humility in the political game. But this time around it is vital that centre-ground politicians keep in mind that the political consequences of their failure may well affect us just as deeply as them.
Jamie Cooke
29th May 2012
Absolutely. The absence of humilty is also combined with a polarisation of opinions which are precluding co-operation. The Westminster bearpit tends to lend itself to combat rather than co-op anyway, but the current environment has degraded even further.
Part of this is rooted in the fact that Labour's response is still based primarily on opposing what is happening rather than having a credible alternative. Ed may have jumped ahead of Cam in the polling, but that is only on the basis of who is less unpopular - hardly a convincing argument for winning an election, particularly if there is any sort of economic upturn.
As with most things in life, I imagine that the answer lies somewhere in between the two extremes - a re-examination of government spending and how we provide public services is definitely needed; but a sensible stimulus to promote spending and demand is also part of the solution. Sadly neither side has the full answer, and at this rate neither side is likely to get it.
Thomas Neumark
28th May 2012
I completely agree. I was stunned by the vehemence of an associates response when I suggested that government stimulus perhaps wouldn't solve all economic ills within a matter of hours.
Faith in the absolute power of stimulus to fix all ills also seems to distract from discussion on how to reform public services, since advocates say there's no need to reform them given that there is no need for cuts. And so on and so on.