Economy

A world without planes

In the book a World Without the West, the authors invite the reader to imagine the non-Western world where South-to-South grow so strong that they bypass the traditional Euro-Atlantic powers. Stuck in southern Europe because of Eyjafjallajokull's eruption, I have begun thinking about life without airplane travel.   The last 15 years have not only seen an explosion in cheap airline travel - spawning new tourist industries in once-forgotten European cities - but there has been an increase in the use of air transport for goods, mail, soldiers and much else besides. What would happen if this is ground to a halt in Europe not for a weekend or weeks but months?

Brown’s signature parade

Only 58? Labour's last letter attacking Tory spending cuts this year had 60 economists' signatures attached to it. Their latest, released today, has only 58. Number 10's signature-marshalling skills are clearly on the wane. I sincerely hope that the Tories don't marshal some economists of their own. The last time that happened, back in February, we witnessed the low point of the fiscal debate – with both sides using a bunch of academics as a substitute for a proper conversation with the public. And, lest we forget, Guido's handy graph reminds us just what those economists were and are quibbling over anyway. This is a phoney war, so it's little surprise that Brown has resorted to it once again. Thankfully, signs are that Tories won't pay heed to the bait.

Brown demolishes himself with untimely ‘admission’

Sorry is the hardest word and Gordon Brown stil hasn’t said it. But, everyday brings surprises. His ‘admission’ about his errors is the first time I’ve ever agreed with his economic analysis. In short, even Brown knows he’s not what he’s cracked up to be. Making such an admission at this stage of the election cycle is extraordinary. The intention may have been to make Brown look human. In which case, he’s succeeded, but to his detriment. Brown looks Biblically fallible. Labour’s campaign rests on one deduction. Gordon Brown built an era of prosperity; then Gordon Brown saved the country from a recession that originated in America; therefore Gordon Brown is the man to lead the country back to prosperity.

Counting the cost of Labour’s national insurance hike

Insightful work from the FT's Chris Giles, who has dug out a couple of academic articles - including one co-authored, in 2007, by George Osborne's current chief of staff, Rupert Harrison - to work out how many jobs Labour's national insurance rise might cost the economy.  The results?  Well, according to Giles, one says that 23,000 jobs will be lost, and the other comes up with 22,000. Neither of these are figures that Labour will want to crow about.  But, as Giles points out, they are below the "57,000 jobs in small and medium-sized businesses alone" that the Conservatives predict in their manifesto.

Does it pay to be mendacious?

Lying is a politician's occupational hazard. The Independent on Sunday has published a Com Res poll confirming that truism. The majority of voters do not believe that David Cameron and Gordon Brown are being honest about how they will tackle the deficit. We voters resent being taken for fools. If Brown and Cameron are being disingenuous about the economy, the honest Sage of Twickenham benefits - the Liberals are storming the marginals, a hung parliament is odds-on according to some pollsters. Is Vince Cable honest about reducing the deficit? Emphatically not. One minute he’s against a VAT rise, but refuses to rule it out the next. He’s in favour of unilateral charges on banks, but not if they fund a tax break for some married couples.

Tories remain on the front foot over national insurance

A copy of a letter that George Osborne sent to Alistair Darling today: Alistair Darling The Labour Party 39 Victoria Street London   SW1H 0HA 9 April 2010 Dear Alistair, In the course of today, the Labour Party’s economic policy has collapsed in a heap of contradictions. In the morning, you attacked our efficiency plans on the grounds that they would reduce public sector headcount – but by lunchtime your own Treasury Minister, Stephen Timms, admitted that your own spending plans meant that “there will be some job losses” (The Daily Politics, BBC 2, 9 April 2010).

Three lessons for the Tories on immigration

The witterings of Phil Woolas about immigration yesterday - where he accused The Spectator of contorting immigration figures and double-counting immigrants - have landed him in plenty trouble. Stephen Timms was on the Daily Politics today and conceded that Woolas was talking out of his hat. They weren't our figures, they were from the ONS - and compiled under orders from Eurostat with its Labour Force Survey (LFS) scheme. Andrew Neil has written it up in a blog here. The government is at sea because even ministers in charge of the relevant departments have no idea about the scale of immigration in Britain. This wee farrago brings three lessons for the Conservatives. 1. Honesty about immigration is crucial.

Labour’s high risk, high reward strategy on national insurance

Labour today has tried to shift the National Insurance debate from whether you should cut waste to prevent a tax rise, to whether the Tories’ sums add up. When the Tories announced their plan to avoid the worst of Labour’s NICs rise by cutting waste they made a conscious decision not to offer details on how they would make these efficiency savings. As one shadow Cabinet minister explained to me, they had no desire to repeat the experience of the James Review when they were going on Newsnight to argue the toss over individual savings. The Tories think that the argument that government can save one pound in every hundred that it spends is credible and that combined with the endorsement of two men who have advised the government on efficiency so recently is enough.

Woolas on the rack

Phil Woolas has just been confronted on Daily Politics about immigration figures which we uncovered on Coffee House yesterday, showing 99 percent of new jobs since 1997 are accounted for by immigration. His response is (unintentionally) hilarious. He is immigration minister, yet appears not to know what immigration figures mean. Here's the transcript: Phil Woolas: I think that the Spectator's analysis, perhaps not surprisingly, is confusing two completely separate things Andrew Neil: These are Office of National Statistics figures.which we checked this morning. Do you accept that there are 1.7 million new jobs for people of working age between 16 and 64, correct? PW: Yes AN: And according to the Labour Force Survey, compiled by the Office of National Statistics. 1.

Brown comes under heavy fire on Today

Woah. I doubt Brown will endure many tougher twenty-minute spells during this election campaign than his interview with on the Today Programme this morning. You could practically hear the crunching of his teeth, as John Humphrys took him on over Labour's economic record; practically smell the sweat and fear dripping down his brow. It was compulsive, and compelling, stuff. Humphrys started by putting a grim story to Brown: that his "handling of the economy was not prudent ... your record suggests that the economy is not safe in your hands."  The PM's mission was to deny all this, and he did so with his usual stubborness and disingenuity.  His pitch here was all about inflation: about how we'd avoided the high inflation of recessions past, and how we should be grateful for that.

How the Tories are decontaminating their associations with Big Business

Over the past couple of years, Big Business (as in, "being in hock with...") has been deployed almost as an insult against the Tories.  But they've now used their campaign on national insurance to turn their business associations into an advantage.  Exhibit A: the above picture (via PoliticsHome) of Cameron's visit to the Warbutons HQ in Bolton, where the company owner has come out in support of Tory proposals.  It sends the message that Big Business doesn't just mean the financial services, and a lot of people, in a lot of regions, rely heavily upon it for their livelihoods.  And too right, too.  Expect plenty more like this from the Tories over the next few weeks.

British jobs for British workers…

Did you know that there are fewer British-born workers in the private sector than there were in 1997? I'd be surprised if so: these official figures are not released. The Spectator managed to get them, on request from the Office of National Statistics. We use the figures in tomorrow's magazine, but I thought they deserves a little more prominence here. See the graph above, which shines a new light on the boasts Gordon Brown has been making. He said his Glasgow speech last month that: "If we had said twelve years ago there would be, even after a global recession, 2.5 million more jobs than in 1997 nobody would have believed us.

The Tunnel Ridge Fault election

At times the chasm between Britain’s political parties is as great as the San Andreas Fault. Sometimes the difference is more like a small rift, a matter of tone not policy. In this year’s election, the difference between the parties is somewhere in between, like the lesser-known Tunnel Ridge Fault in Eastern California. In part, the appearance of only minor differences may explain why the polls are showing such different things; some predict that Labour will hang on to power, others that the Tories will be able to win.

Quote for the Day*

Courtesy of Stephanie Flanders, the BBC's Economics Editor: Welcome to the election. If we're to believe Alistair Darling, the Conservatives' 'credibility gap' on tax and spending has shrunk by 34% since January, or about £11bn. If they carry on like this, they might be thoroughly credible by election day. Naturally, that is not how the chancellor put it in his press conference this morning, as he released more than 180 pages detailing the Conservative Party's (new and improved) "Credibility Deficit". Back in January, Labour said there was a £33.8bn hole in the Conservatives' plans. Now it's fallen to £22.2bn - suggesting a 34% rise in credibiliy. But, to coin a phrase, Labour's numbers really don't add up. Quite.

The true cost of Brown’s debt binge

When Alistair Daring admitted last week that there would indeed be job losses arising from the proposed National Insurance hike, it would have struck Gordon Brown and Ed Balls like root canal surgery. This blows wide open the main part of Brown's election deceit: asking the public to look at the advantages of the borrowing, and not contemplate the flip side to the debt coin. Not to ask where the repayments will come from, or the impact of those repayments on the jobs of the future. No wonder Darling is today being made to claim the opposite. The grim truth is that every job "protected" now, due to debt, will be more than balanced out by money taken away from the economy in the form of the interest needed to serve that debt.

Brown helps Cameron to define his Big Idea

Gordon Brown has walked straight into George Osborne’s trap. After bleating that the national insurance tax cut is unaffordable, he has decided to make this a massive election dividing line – claiming that this teeny (1 percent of state spending) tax cut somehow poses a mortal danger to an economic recovery.  Please, God, let him keep on this message through the campaign. “The Tories are proposing to cut your taxes and make you better off – stop this lunacy, and vote Labour”. But Alastair Darling has taken it further, with a significant piece of language on the radio this morning. The Tory tax cut, he says, is “taking money out of the economy” at a vulnerable time. As he said at 7.

The Tories’ campaign is sharpening up

As declaration day (the rather pompus name that news organisations have come up with for the moment when Gordon Brown actually calls the election) draws nearer, the Tory campaign is sharpening up. This morning’s operation on National Insurance was impressive, enabling the party to get a second set of headlines out of its plan to stop Labour’s National Insurance rise. The letter from 23 business leaders supporting the Tory position worked on several levels. First, it got the Tories’ tax cut back on the top of the news agenda along with its clear message: seven out of ten workers will be better off under the Conservatives. Second, it strengthened the Tory case that the risk to the economy is to increase the tax on jobs not cutting government waste.

A morning of to-and-fro

Who’s in the ascendant this morning? As Pete noted earlier, David Cameron’s barnstorming morning stalled on the Today programme when pressed to cost his National Insurance tax cut. The government went to it press conference scenting blood – understandably vague Tory tax pledges can be easily represented as indicative of general incoherence. Mandelson was in political warlord mode, flanked by Liam Byrne and Alistair Darling, his unlikely musclemen. But they blew it. First, Byrne and Mandelson asserted, with absolute certainty, that the Tories will raise VAT. Opaque pledges cannot be successfully criticised by baseless soothsayings.

Hammond’s honesty

Philip Hammond gave the first presentation at this Big Society event, and he admitted something that the Tories don't admit too often.  First, he attacked Gordon Brown for doubling the national debt. And then he added that, "unfortunately, we're on a trajectory where the national debt will double again over the next few years." Hammond's right to highlight this. The danger for a Tory government is that their attacks on Brown in 2010 could look hypocritical in 2015, when they would have presided over rising debt as well. The key thing is to pin the blame for this situation on Brown, and ask whether he can be trusted to keep it under some sort of control.

Whitehall’s hung parliament contingency plans vindicate Tory alarm over the economy

There it is. The Tories' premier weapon emblazoned across the front pages of the Guardian and the Telegraph: Brown could stay on as PM in a hung parliament, even if the Tories win more seats. To be fair to Brown, the headlines are misleading. It is his duty to remain in office until it is clear that David Cameron or another politician commands the confidence of the House, which may take weeks in current circumstances. Mandarins are drawing up radical contingency plans to ensure that some modicum of economic stability is maintained during that period. These measures include temporarily proroguing parliament for 18 days after the election (rather than the usual 6) and allowing the Chancellor to remain in office for that period even if he has lost his seat.