George Osborne did not expect to win the election. No party did. But he did, and as a result inherited a nightmare from the previous administration and an election fought with the expectation of a coalition outcome. His position is, as a result, exceptionally difficult.
The offer to hold a referendum on Europe to keep the Tory far right from defecting to UKIP leaves a massive economic and political risk on the horizon that might have implications for growth prospects for years to come.
The City is growing in influence again. The chance of another melt down before the delayed measures designed to tackle issues arising from the last one are put in place in 2018 are high.
Interest rates could rise soon, whether he likes it or not. This will severely impact growth. It may also cause mortgage defaults and so create a banking crisis.
And Scotland sits on the sidelines waiting to exit.
Mervyn King said post the 2008 crash that the 2010 election wasn't one to win. I wonder if he got his timing wrong?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Seems to me that insofar as the government actually has a plan, that plan will inevitably result in a true domestic crash, of the sort they pretend the 2008 one was, when seeking to blame labour for our woes.
It is clear that the idea that they have a long term plan is laughable since they reversed their policy in 2012 because of the predictable damage austerity was doing. While they did not admit that, it is a relief to know that they have the wit to at least moderate their policy when it harms us all: sadly I do not think it was motivated by that harm, but rather to the harm to their electoral prospects. They have not given up their ideology, and presumably the outcomes were seen as a mysterious blip, rather than a crucial test of their hypotheses which showed them to be wrong.
I have no idea why the electorate appears to accept their wearisome claim that they are on track and need to “finish the job”. But it seems that they find abstract numbers more persuasive than their own lived experience. Or maybe they know the truth but are masochists. Whatever the reason I don’t think that Osborne regrets winning: he has unshakeable belief that the people will continue to accept his successful narrative and since they cannot live any other outcome while he is in charge, the options can continue to be presented as utopian or naive or damaging: whatever.
What is curious is that it seems to me that neoliberals actively conflate the idea of “authority” and “expertise”, pretending that the latter does not exist if discussing public service or the professions. Joe Soap knows better than a teacher and is better equipped to decide on medical care than a doctor, in one part of the forest. The exception is neo classical economists and McKinsey. They have knowledge the rest of us do not have, and we must defer to that.
It is a very curious narrative.
Very well written Fiona.
All I would add is that I still have to be convinced that thet electorate (25%) voted Tory because they like their policies.
I’ve observed that people voted Tory because:
1. They don’t like Scotland and don’t want the Scottish having a say in our affairs – especially their politicians.
2. They blame Labour for the crash and think that Labour left us bankrupt (a narrative spell that is still unbroken – thanks Liam Byrne you fool!)
3. They think that the public sector are useless and that they are all paid better than them and there are gold plated pensions and welcome a government keen to make them suffer like all non-public sector workers already do, so there – Hah!.
4. Ed Miliband cannot be trusted because he stabbed brother Dave in the back over the Labour leadership.
5. Ed Miliband is a loser – he’s weird, speaks funny and cannot take a bacon sarnie like a real man. People want to back winners – like the Camerons and be associated with success and ride their scooters to work like Sam Cameron.
6. People are very resilient with living a hard life. They would rather be comfortable with the hardships they know, rather than try something new even if the new promises something better. Better the Devil you know etc……..
7. They have been promised the ownership of their rented home that does not belong to them at a discount which means that they will have some form of cheaply (but illegally) acquired equity for the first time in their life.
8. They have been convinced by the Tories that we have the best and most generous social security system in the world which must be true because this is why so many immigrants want to come here (never mind that (1) our benefit payments are now classed as some of the most niggardly in the world and (2) most immigrants come from places where there is not only no work but rampant instability and death) and the people who rely on these are underserving scroungers who stay in bed whilst they go out to work so it is good to reduce benefits and make them take jobs that offer zero hours and low pay.
I’m sure there are more but it is a real mixture of bribes, lies and misinformation that has been inducted by Tory voters during the election.
As for the way in which the Tories confuse expertise etc., – well they don’t. They do it on purpose.
All neo-lib accounts of public services talk about the self-interest of providers who seek to grow their kingdoms. Rather than confuse, they actually ignore that these tendencies also occur in the private sector and in the financial sector in particular. This is because they see the public sector as an abberation – an unatural part of the economy that should not exist.
The neo-lib Tories always promise to break down ‘vested interests’ from public life. But what they actually do is replace the so-called vested interests of the State with those vested interests of the business or financial sector. So rather than remove vested interests, they just swap one with another – witness policies like privatisation, RTB and PFI.
Finally, the neo-lib Tories label everything they do with very powerful words like ‘freedom’ and ‘choice’. And when it goes wrong, they always find other people to blame it on. Like Unions, the disabled, or not going far enough with Thatcherism in the first place.
I recognise all of that though I remain puzzled as to why people accept this because they have access to all the information I have, and I don’t accept it: neither do most people in Scotland and I can assure you it is not because of the Scottish media, on the whole
I mentioned before the regularity with which the english voter seems to react to someone getting a relatively good deal with “that’s not fair, take it off them”: instead of the more rational “I want some of that too”. I am tempted to conclude they are all deranged (but only in my darker moments) or that they are masochists
I did not say they confused authority and expertise: I said they conflate them. And I agree with your view on the reasons for it. And with the rest of your post
I think there is genuine incomprehension in England about what has happened / is happening in Scotland
And little desire to find out
Sadly for many people opinion has become equivalent to fact and vice versa.
Apparently, “informed opinion” has lost its meaning, and any narrative can be used to ignore whole areas of fact.
Fiona, you should moderate yourself when referencing the English, use some, as most of us did not vote for what we have ended up with.
@james s.
Certainly. I am normally at pains to say it is not all of the english electorate: indeed my position on the plight of the labour party depends on the proposition that their core vote is quite similar to that in Scotland: and that they can and will lose it elsewhere if they decide to follow the recommendations of the tory media, as seems all to likely at present.
The fact remains, however, that the english voting pattern has delivered a tory government again, and that is not untypical. I am sorry that I was not very precise in making distinctions on this occasion, but I did say that the generalisation was for my darker moments. The trouble with the relentless attack on the SNP and, more widely on all things Scottish, we experience from the media is that it aims to divided and rule; and it is to some extent effective. We all swim in the same water, and when we are informed that any Scottish influence at the UK parliament is somehow illegitimate I look for opposition to that view from those same english voters and politicians. With the honourable exception of Diane Abbot I don’t hear it much. So if I stereotype on occasion, that is my fault: but I don’t do it in a vacuum.
You think the current Conservative economic policy will inevitably result in a crash equivilant to the banking crisis of 2008? Honestly?
I think the failure of the world to address the issues arising from that crash may do so here and in the US
So do the IMF
Honestly?
Assuming you accept that the crash was fundamentally a financial crisis and not primarily caused by government spending as per Georgie’s porkie, then ask what has fundamentally changed in the financial sector that means that the same will not happen again? I would suggest next to nothing. Much the same practices that caused the crisis are still going on and regulation is not really any tougher. And of course no-one has had their collar felt to provide any form of disincentive. If there is a difference it is that we the public are now carrying the debt burden of bailing the banks out last time.
So when it happens next time, do we just add another 20-30-40% to our debt to bail them out again?
Next time we may not be able to bail them
Soemone else may let more than one major one go and then the dominos topple come what may
As Gillian Tettt is warning today in FT, it may not be he banking sector which fails next, because there has at least some attempt to impose some controls. The ‘buy side’ of finance has escaped such scrutiny. As Obama says “The top 25 hedge funbd managers made more money than all the kinder-garten teachers in the country”.
Fair point she made
You miss my point Robin. I agree that if the banks new regulations do not work then a repeat crisis is possible in the future. However, Fiona seems to indicate that Tory policy (i.e. their cuts programme) will cause a similar recession. I think this is extreme hyperbole.
James
You are wrong
a) Cuts will impact regulation
b) As a matter of fact cuts reduce GDP and so make recession more likely
c) There is no reason to think the slack will be made up elsewhere
Richard
Will the Tories taking 32Bn pounds out of the economy start another depression?
Since reducing government spending does reduce GDP it will help
Great piece by Ann Pettifor: http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/has-labour-just-dodged-a-bullet.
It’s about time Ann took Green QE on board
I thought Ann did back Green QE or something similar at least?
Not in the paper linked to
She is a member of the Geen New Deal group
There’s this:
http://www.primeeconomics.org/articles/green-qe-is-possible-says-the-governor-of-the-bank-of-england
It’s about time Ann took LVT on board. Her old friend Jerry wrote our pamphlet.
I 100% agree that whoever got in was shackled with a dead albatross around their necks. i agree that in the last administration there was an element of chess playing foresight of several moves ahead thereby screwing up the years to come econimcally so that whoever was in would get the blame though most of the action had already taken place.
With all of that said what has taken place, along with Camerons recent authoritarian comments around tolerance and some of the worrying choices for his cabinet, reminds me hugely of the ‘Eurozone Adjustment’ which you yourself pointed out several years ago – http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2013/06/25/jp-morgan-wants-europe-to-be-rid-of-social-rights-democracy-employee-rights-and-the-right-to-protest/
and the Citigroup Plutonomy Memos from the mid 2000’s – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZ3-OWMa92E
Fiona – when we conflate issues – especially when politicians do it (they do it all of the time) – I feel that it causes confusion in the public sphere – that’s why I reintrepeted what you said – I’m saying that confusion is often the outcome of conflation.
Anyhow……………..
I have to say that you are spot with this English attitude that I’ve seen up close and personal: ‘If I can’t have it, neither will you!”
All this attitude does is cause a perverse aspiration that everyone’s wages should be levelled down and that we all should be poorly paid and unsupported to live our lives when really, the real fight should be to ensure that we all get a fair share of the wealth we generate as a society as more of it is generated – that our wealth should go up across the board – level up.
I hold the Tory party and neo-liberalism (the cunning of their unreason) fully responsible for this. I think it a bit hard on people to say that they are masochistic or anything like that because they are manipulated so much by a neo-lib friendly press.
We are being indoctrinated into market thinking 24/7. Some of us are resistant to it but many are not because they are too busy trying to survive.
The reason I would ask people to think about this a bit more is because the last thing any reforming agent wants to do is turn against the very people they want to help even if they drive you barmy with frustration.
In Adam Curtis’ controversial film about Bin Laden ‘The Power of Nightmares’, he recounts how when Islamic extremists failed to get the people they thought they were helping to rise up, then literally turned on these people whom they now saw as unworthy of their efforts and treated them like cannon fodder in their murderous campaigns in places like Egypt and North Africa simply because the public would not back extreme methods or doctrine.
If we progressives begin to look down our noses at those we say we represent, then we will truly be deluding ourselves about our objectives and any success we expect. Is this what Labour has done? I feel in many ways that they have.
Labour must learn to love the union Jack loving white van man as well as the middle class and see things from his POV. The Tories purport to love him, identify with him (‘hardworking tax payers’) and then mislead and betray him.
What we may call masochism in voters may actually be the symptom of defeat, or hardy resignation. But they know something is wrong, there is injustice but articulate this as anger to those who have a little more than them because if we are honest, those who have a little more are closer to them and a more tangible target than the neo-lib press insulated millionaire politicians, businesses and managers who make their lives a misery in the first place.
If Labour or the counter narrative does not get its head around this, well, the right/Neo-libs are green lit all the way. And that prospect is real.
We are very much in agreement, Mark C.
It is my opinion that Labour have indeed turned on their core support, and it seems they have not understood that if you lose them the normal politics of trying to win swing voters will never compensate. That is what has happened in Scotland, and yet they seem to think it cannot happen in England. I think it is only a matter of time, however. Scots were fortunate in having a clear alternative: and so they have turned away from Labour in droves.
One demonstration of the effect of the demonisation and contempt for the poor and the working class is the readiness with which both parties accept ridiculous narratives about their behaviour. One example was when Ruth Davidson tweeted there were “disturbing reports” of burly men intimidating voters who did not intend to vote for a “certain party” at a polling station in Annan. I do not think that she made that up, necessarily (though it was utterly false) but what is telling is the readiness to believe it and broadcast it. It speaks volumes about her picture of ordinary people. Jim Murphy’s escapade with Eddie Izzard in Glasgow is another example. Utterly false portrayal of what happened, eagerly accepted by other labour supporters.
These people never get out to meet people, and have been persuaded that there is a violent and irrational body of poor people, of whom they believe anything negative at all. They have both invented this group and accepted that picture when it is promoted by others, It is not hard to do that if you surround yourself with “security” and like minded people. In contrast SNP politicians go walkabout and have no such fears. It is a variation of the narrative in the press about violence on the streets: for those who seldom go out at night they “know” it is dangerous, and they don’t risk it. Which keeps them in their box, a captive audience for more of the same narrative. Divide and rule, in spades.
“when the poor hunt the poor over mountain and moor, the rich man can keep them in chains”
My mention of “masochism” is not wholly serious, though there does seem to be an element of that which I cannot overlook: though some of the electorate have turned away from both tory and labour, more have not and they really do seem to vote against their own interests in a very puzzling way.
I agree about comparisons being made with those closest to your own situation. We can do no other, IMO. I can no more truly imagine the life of a very wealthy tory, than he can imagine mine. There is no criticism in that: it is how we are made, I think. But that does not absolve us from responsibility: because our objectives do not have to depend on empathy, or emotional connection of any kind. We are free to make our choices on the basis of ethics and reason, and we should do that. It is a monumental mistake to imagine that those in different circumstances are not “us”: and it is one of unimaginable proportions to apply that othering to the poor. For most of us we are far more likely to become the poor than we are to become millionaires. And if that is “anti aspirational” so be it: it is also true.
We all need to look at what life at the bottom is like and whether it is in keeping with civilised norms and human dignity: for none of us ordinary folk are far from the bottom and our position is not at all secure
Fiona
People voting for themselves can seem at first to be rather puzzling. But further reflection will bring realisation.
Can you remember the character ‘Atticus Finch’ in the book ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’?
He says this:
“You never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view, until you climb inside of his skin and walk around in it”.
This is basically what we are saying. Labour and those who consider ourselves as some sort of counter-narrative need ponder this point very carefully.
https://medium.com/bull-market/the-overall-benefit-cap-a-little-time-bomb-under-uk-buy-to-let-housing-9575030792d3
Fiona
Where I do agree with you is that I believe the Scots are more politically savvy than us. Many in England have the view that politics is boring and that it does not effect them directly, as a consequence they tend to only absorb the narrative/sound bite. This plays directly into the hands of our right wing press, and as you Point out, we in England vote in a party that without question will never represent their hopes, fears and aspirations.