Why “too far, too fast” isn’t enough

In this member post, Stuart Clark argues that Labour needs to improve its strategy for opposing the Coalition’s economic policy.

The details of yesterday’s Budget are still being dissected, but the economic and political arguments are well under way. On the face of it the Chancellor’s measures seemed to offer help to the British public: increases in personal tax allowances and duty rate cuts amongst the most heavily publicised. Yet these measures pale into insignificance given the context of this budget – the weakness in the British economy and last autumn’s Comprehensive Spending Review.

Osborne’s “Budget for Growth” saw UK growth figures for current and future years revised downward. This is where the opposition should – and has – primarily focused: Ed Miliband’s response to the budget was barely three minutes old before we were hearing, yet again, how government cuts were risking the fragile recovery and were going “too far, too fast”.

But this sound-bite is inadequate in contesting the ideological basis of the government’s economic policy.

Ideology was all too apparent in yesterday’s Budget; the country’s economic problems were tackled in a market-orientated fashion by a government determined not to use the state to its full potential to help people.

Labour failed and is still failing to communicate effectively that the size of Britain’s deficit is not the result of overzealous public spending but a calculated economic decision taken to protect Britain’s economy from the loss of private sector demand and investment caused by a global financial crises and severe recession which followed.

Labour made a moral decision to use the power and resources of the state to shield the ordinary people of this country from the worst effects of the recession and in so doing accepted the need to run a deficit. As the private sector recovered, tax receipts would have risen and public spending could have been withdrawn – this was a viable strategy focused at preventing excessive unemployment.

The Chancellor’s rhetoric may be about growth, but if he really cared about it he would spare the country the cuts in public spending and increases in VAT, which will reduce demand and therefore harm our economy’s prospects.

Criticising deficit reduction as “too far, too fast” concedes the argument in favour of some sort of mandatory deficit reduction, something which Labour’s plan to halve the deficit in four years is also guilty of.

Reductions in public spending should be wholly conditional on growth.

Labour, by failing to articulate the success of the stimulus and the continued viability of UK borrowing in the short term, has made it far too easy for the Coalition to argue that cuts are necessary immediately.

And this makes it harder to expose the coalition policy as one of ideology rather than one of economics.

Cutting Housing Benefit is a false economy

Earlier this month, the Young Fabian Work and Families Policy Development Group looked at the issue of housing, here PDG member Catriona Hatton finds that the arguments for and against cutting housing benefit all point towards the need for more housing.

In June George Osborne announced that a new housing benefit cap would be introduced in an attempt to slash the cost of housing benefit, which has risen sharply to £19.6 billion per year from approx £11 billion in 1997. The cap places an upper limit of £400 a week on a four bedroom house and £280 for a two bedroom property in rented private sector.

In favour of the cap, there is a strong argument that leaving housing benefit uncapped increases the housing benefit bill, since landlords effectively set the rate at which the benefit is paid. If Government willingly pays housing benefit at the price set by the market, landlords have incentives to set the rents as high as possible, since raising rents will not affect the tenant’s ability to live there. The result is tax payer’s money going to the benefit of private landlords in the buy-to-let market, an upward pressure on property prices for all, and an ever increasing housing benefit bill.

However the arguments against the cap, in my opinion, far outweigh the arguments for it. The impact of the cap will have devastating consequences for recipients, particularly in London and the South East where in many places it is simply not possible to find quality housing at the rate set by the cap. In addition any future increases in the cap would be linked to consumer price inflation rather than increases in rental prices, reducing the real value of the allowance.

Importantly the social mix of the London would be drastically changed, with thousands of families being forced out of inner London, causing greater disparity in wealth between different parts of London. Overcrowding will occur and new slum areas are likely to develop, resulting in the less well off being geographically cut off from the wealthy in society.

All evidence shows that separation in this way lowers life opportunities, for instance due to inferior access to education and employment opportunities and lack of connections. In addition there would be greater pressure on schools and social services in other areas as a result of a sudden influx and overcrowding.

It is argued that the cap will increase incentives to find work. However this is unfair on recipients who are not able to work such as pensioners, people with serious disabilities, and also on those recipients who are already in work but it is too low paid for them to cover their rent fully.

The root cause of the escalation in the housing benefit bill is the under supply of affordable housing and addressing this would be the most beneficial solution. The priority should be to create more affordable homes through the building of council housing, the expansion of housing association schemes, private investment through subsidies and through the expansion of shared ownership schemes. Only when the supply of affordable homes is increased will it be unnecessary for the tax payer to subsidise high private sector rent. Unfortunately the cap will only serve to worsen the problem as waiting lists for council housing and housing association homes lengthen, and ultimately it will push people into poverty.

Osborne’s apparent lack of understanding of the National Accounts

Perversely, today’s surprise GDP figures have provided meat to all sides. Labour claims it was their action while in government that helped grow the economy 1.1% in the second quarter compared to the first. The Coalition claim the figures validate their approach of expedited deficit reduction, pointing to the fact that the majority of the 1.1% growth (around 1 percentage point of it) came from the private sector.

AFP reports Osborne as saying:

“Today’s figures show the private sector contributing all but 0.1 percent of the growth in the second quarter, and put beyond doubt that it was right to begin acting on the deficit now.

“While I am cautiously optimistic about the path for the economy, the job is not yet done.

“The priority now is to implement the budget policies which support rebalancing and help ensure … sustained growth.”

This is, of course, a bit misleading. GDP is calculated on a value-add basis – the difference between the value of a produced good or service, and the value of the materials used to create it.

What this means in practice is that the stated government contribution to GDP doesn’t accurately reflect government expenditure. For example, the government could buy £1bn of baked beans and fill the House of Parliament with them, and it would add very little to the government share of GDP. The value add would end up elsewhere – in consumer expenditure or exports/imports, for example.

So quite a lot of Government expenditure doesn’t show up in the government consumption share of GDP – this is the difference between what the Government produces on a value-add basis, and the total income it derives from taxation and borrowing (a lot of government expenditure is just a transfer from one group to another).

This is quite an important point in the context of savage cuts to government department budgets. When the government scales back expenditure, the feed-back effects are more broadly felt – we can expect wider consumption and capital investment to fall because some business and consumers rely on government transferring tax revenues to them (for which they may or may not provide services).

And if you scale back government expenditure by enough, you can start having material effects on non-Government components of GDP because of the way the national accounts are assembled. This may mean lower or negative GDP growth.

Osborne’s analysis of these results therefore seems a little naïve, or deliberately misleading.