Showing posts with label ONS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ONS. Show all posts

Tuesday, 28 May 2019

Tory austerity fanaticism is nonsensical backwards-economics


The Tory austerity myth told us that the only way to reduce public borrowing was a massive programme of public sector spending cuts.

During the austerity years the Tories and their Lib-Dem enablers pushed all kinds of ruinous policies that resulted in the slowest economic recovery in centuries, and the worst collapse in the value of UK workers' wages since records began, but perhaps the most damaging aspect of all was their deliberate reduction in infrastructure investment so that the UK became the lowest-investment country in the entire developed world.

The bulk of the Tory austerity cuts (especially reductions in local government funding and cancelled infrastructure projects) have been deliberately aimed at non-Tory voting areas like the North East, South Wales, the central belt of Scotland, and the former industrial cities of Yorkshire, the North West, and Midlands.

Infrastructure investment is generally a strong fiscal multiplier, especially at times where the cost of borrowing is exceptionally low (like the last decade), because this kind of spending creates jobs and economic demand in the short-term, and increases the future economic potential of an economy in the long-term (high-skill, high-tech, high-pay companies are far more likely to locate in places with great infrastructure, than places with failing public services and outdated and over-crowded public transport links).

It seems too obvious to have to spell it out in simple like this, but a near-decade of Tory austerity fanaticism has proven that huge swathes of the UK population will simply believe that the only way to reduce borrowing is to wantonly slash spending on the things that actually increase economic potential and prosperity!

The latest evidence that "let's cut our way to growth" austerity fanaticism is completely backwards comes from the Office for National Statistics data on economic surpluses and deficits by region, which demonstrates a strong correlation with their data on investment on stuff like infrastructure and public transport.

It's surely no coincidence that the two regions with by far the highest levels of public investment in infrastructure and public transport also have the biggest per capita surpluses, while the three most austerity-blighted regions with the lowest levels of investment are the ones with the worst per capita deficits.

Of course this isn't a hard and fast rule, because the North West and Scotland buck the trend slightly in the graph with larger per capita deficits despite higher rates of investment, but it's important to note that these regions have also suffered much more severely due to Tory austerity fanaticism compared to regions with higher levels of habitual Tory-voting, like the South West, East of England, and East Midlands.

All the evidence points to the fact that the Tories have got it completely backwards. That cutting the deficit is achieved by increased public investment, and that low-investment high-austerity regions continue running deficits.

The more you cut, the worse the deficit.

But this blatant Tory backwardness won't bother most people.

Most of the mainstream media will continue refusing to explain explaining the relatively simple fact that austerity fanaticism does exactly the opposite of what the Tories claimed it would, so they people won't even know about it, and many of those who do somehow come across the mountains of evidence that austerity is completely backwards economic gibberish will simply ignore it because it actually takes bravery to admit that you've been the subject of a decade-long con job, when it's much easier on the ego to just ignore the compelling evidence that you got totally duped.

 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Friday, 31 March 2017

Has Theresa May set us on an irreversible course towards a "no deal" Brexit cliff edge?


After six moths of dithering and repeatedly fobbing the electorate off with meaningless platitudes like "Brexit means Brexit" Theresa May finally announced her so-called "negotiating strategy" in her January 2017 clown costume speech.

The right-wing press reacted to her woeful speech as if it was Churchillian in its magnificence, but to anyone with the wit to consider her words for themselves (rather than mindlessly allowing the mainstream media to programme their opinions for them) couldn't help but notice a couple of glaring flaws in it.

Fantasy and threats

The first flaw was that much of what Theresa May was promising was spectacularly unlikely to happen. Special sectoral deals to allow Single Market access just for favoured sections of the economy like banking and car manufacturing (while locking small businesses, sole traders and individuals out of it) are not only a terrible idea that would rig the UK economy even more in favour of massive multinational corporations, but also a ridiculous fantasy that the EU were never going to allow to happen.

The second thing was that her long awaited "negotiating strategy" was nothing more than threat-based posturing. If the EU don't cave in and give Theresa May the special corporate favours she's demanding she's threatening to strop away from the negotiating table with nothing, and then use that as an excuse to set about turning the UK into a parasitical and universally despised corporate tax haven.

Ever since this diplomatic toddler tantrum of a "negotiating strategy" was announced, it's been reinforced over and again by the endless repetition of the propaganda sound bite that "no deal is better than a bad deal".

Theresa May's fantasy is impossible
[full article]

The draft EU resolution on Brexit negotiations makes it absolutely clear that Theresa May's fantasy of some kind of quickfire partial free trade agreement is in tatters.

There's no way she's getting special sectoral deals for her corporate mates, there's no way that she's even going to be allowed to start negotiating an EU-UK trade deal before the Brexit divorce agreement is finalised, and there's no way that she's going to be allowed to start making the Trump-Tory trade deal she's been begging for before the UK has actually left the EU.


Theresa May has promised the nation a load of stuff that she absolutely won't be able to deliver.

Concessions, concessions, concessions

The Brexit fantasy that Theresa May has been hawking to the public is completely at odds with reality. This means that she's going to have to walk back on a lot of the stuff she's been saying, and offer numerous concessions to the EU in order to get any kind of deal whatever.

The problem of course is that she's primed the right-wing press and her own Eurosceptic MPs with the propaganda sound bite that "no deal is better than a bad deal" meaning that they will obviously use every single concession she makes as an excuse to shriek "bad deal" at her and demand the socially and economically ruinous nuclear Brexit they've always craved.

Is Theresa May a strong enough leader to withstand such a relentless onslaught, or is she the kind of weak leader who sees pandering to hacks at the Daily Mail, S*n and Express as one of her core objectives?


Merrily marching towards the cliff edge

The Brexit minister David Davis has openly admitted that the Tory government did absolutely no risk analysis on how bad a "no deal" nuclear Brexit would be before they decided to use the threat of it as the centrepiece of their so-called "negotiating strategy".

The London School of Economics has done some analysis on the "no deal" scenario and their findings are horrifying. They have estimated that if the UK strops away from the negotiating table with no deal, it will cost the UK somewhere between 6.3% - 9.5% of GDP (that's an average of £4,200 - £6,400 per household).

If Theresa May caves in to the "bad deal" shrieking of the Tory Eurosceptics and the hard-right press and flounces away from the negotiating table empty handed, the economic consequences will be catastrophic (especially for the manufacturing sector).

The warnings of economic ruination won't stop the baying Brexiter enforced optimism mob from insulting and belittling anyone who tries to raise concerns though. 

These people want us to join their merry band, plaster smiles onto our faces and all march off the cliff edge together, and anyone who dares to raise concerns or tries in any way to avert this disaster will be furiously shouted down as "traitor", "remoaner", "sore loser", "whinger", "anti-British" ...


Is this what she actually wanted?

The most charitable interpretation of Theresa May's "no deal is better than a bad deal" rhetoric is that it's a catastrophically inept failure in expectation management. But then there's also the distinct possibility that it's part of a deliberate ploy to condition the public into actually believing that driving the UK economy off an economic cliff edge is the best course of action by presenting any alternative to marching off the cliff as a "bad deal"!

The quickfire pro-corporate EU-UK trade deal that Theresa May outlined in January is pure fantasy that was never going to happen, so threatening to march the UK economy off a cliff if she didn't get it was an incredibly dangerous threat to make.

The big question of course is whether Theresa May decided to make such ridiculously unrealistic demands because she's totally delusional, or if she knew it was impossible nonsense all along but that it's part of a Tory ploy to deliberately walk away from the negotiations empty handed so they can turn the UK into a deregulated corporate tax haven whilst pinning all of the blame for the ensuing social and economic catastrophe on the EU.

As is so often the case we're left considering the age old question: Is this latest Tory shambles down to incompetence, or is it down to malice?


 Another Angry Voice  is a "Pay As You Feel" website. You can have access to all of my work for free, or you can choose to make a small donation to help me keep writing. The choice is entirely yours.




OR

Thursday, 7 February 2013

The Tory long-term unemployment catastrophe

At first glance, the official unemployment figures released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) in January 2013 make comforting reading to Tory sympathisers. If one just focuses on the headline figure of 7.7% unemployment and an economic inactivity rate of just over 9 million people, you could imagine that although the rates are barely moving downwards, things are not getting any worse.

However if one digs a little deeper into the long -term unemployment and youth unemployment figures we find some truly shocking statistics. I've used the last batch of ONS employment statistics released under the Labour government for comparison, published in April 2010.

What we have to bear in mind is that this last batch of economic figures released under the Labour administration were terrible. The Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats used the skyrocketing rates of unemployment in the wake of the global financial sector crisis of 2007-08 as a pre-election club to bludgeon Labour with. The fact that the global financial crisis had resulted in labour market chaos and the very worst unemployment figures since the early days of the Labour administration, just before a General Election was a disaster for the party. Any opposition with the slightest air of competence about them should have romped to a landslide victory on the back of dismal labour market figures like this.

As we know the Tories didn't romp to victory, they crawled into power with the backing of the Liberal Democrats. In the early days of the Tory led administration they were bullish; George Osborne set about inflicting his "cut now, think later" ideological austerity experiment with the zeal of a man on an ideological crusade, His wonks at brainchild taxpayer funded right-wing economic think tank, the OBR, predicted 2.6% growth for the UK economy by 2012 and the welfare minister Iain Duncan Smith talked optimistically about "getting Britain working" as he set about extending private sector outsourcing contracts at the DWP left over by Labour and bringing in his own flagship outsourcing project known as the Work Programme.

As we know how it turned out, Osborne's ideological austerity experiment drove the UK into a double-dip recession, economic growth in 2012 was a shocking minus  0.1%, in the year that the UK hosted the most prestigious sporting event on the planet. The private sector outsourcing projects at the DWP turned out catastrophically with the Atos WCA assessments picking up the moniker "the disability denial factory", the Workfare scheme provoking widespread protests and comparisons with slavery and Iain's flagship Work Programme costing an estimated £450 million in it's first year, just to place 31,240 clients out of 877,880 into work, a success rate of just 3.5%, with not a single one of the 18 Work Programme contractors meeting the minimum target of getting just 5.5% of clients into work.

Throughout this debacle one thing remained a mystery, the overall rate of unemployment remained more or less static, despite George Osborne's austerity experiment causing economic stagnation (a fact admitted by his brainchild think tank's own research) and Iain Duncan Smith's hopeless tenure as Employment minister.

Comparing the January 2013 employment data with the April 2010 report we find a number of startling things, the number of people unemployed and claiming benefits for over one year has risen by 168,000 to 894,000, a rise of 23.1%. Youth unemployment has risen by 36.2% to 963,000 and worst of all, the number of people out of work and claiming benefits for more than two years has risen from 268,000 (a post economic crisis all time high under the 1997-2010 Labour administration) to 443,000, a rise of 65.3%.

Despite all of the Tory rhetoric about tackling long-term unemployment, the facts speak for themselves: The Conservatives have overseen a massive rise in long-term unemployment. What is worse, is that this massive increase has come on top of the worst figures the Labour administration ever produced. Labour had the excuse that the global economic crisis had caused havoc in the Labour market. What is the Tory excuse? Their rhetoric in 2010 was that they were going to bring long term unemployment down, instead it has skyrocketed.

One is left with the distinct impression that Iain Duncan Smith and the Tories never had any real plan to deal with the unemployment situation, no cross-governmental strategy to support British businesses with innovative new ideas, no attempts to improve co-operation between the DWP and the education sector, no plans at all really. All they could come up with was the ever-predictable Tory strategy of "lets abnegate our own responsibilities, get the private sector in on some lucrative taxpayer funded contracts and watch as our privatisation experiment goes wonderfully". It seems that Iain Duncan Smith has spent far more time pushing the DWP to draw up desperately one sided contracts with the private sector (where the private sector take enormous profits,with the taxpayer left to carry all of the risk and all of the unforeseen financial costs too).

We can only imagine how much better the situation would have been had Iain Duncan Smith not spent his energies pushing through one bonkers, taxpayer funded private sector outsourcing scheme after another, and instead focused his energies on devising some real practical initiatives to tackle unemployment. The numerous failures of these private sector outsourcing schemes (The Atos WCA scheme, Workfare and the Work Programme) illustrate one thing very clearly indeed. The private sector is not well suited to the successful implementation of social reform. When it comes to the crunch, the private sector has a shareholder obligation to ensure a profit whatever the circumstances. If it is a choice between turning a profit and the success of the social reform, there is only one possible outcome. Profit comes first and concern for the actual well being of the unemployed comes as a very low priority consideration.

One thing is for sure though, despite this desperate worsening of the long-term unemployment situation, there will be no change of policy from Iain Duncan Smith now. The private sector contracts are all drawn up now, to walk away from these catastrophic schemes would cost hundreds of £millions in compensation payouts. And anyhow, with Tory popularity slumping lower and lower, they are going to need all the scapegoats they can get in the run-up to the next election. They won't care one jot that they made the long-term unemployment situation so much worse, as long as they turn the "scrounger narratives" up to full volume, they'll be hopeful that there are sufficient ignorant reactionaries to be won over with a good old fashioned display of Tory hate.




Another Angry Voice is a not-for-profit page which generates absolutely no revenue from advertising and accepts no money from corporate or political interests. The only source of revenue for Another Angry Voice is the  PayPal  donations box (which can be found in the right hand column, fairly near the top of the page). If you could afford to make a donation to help keep this site going, it would be massively appreciated.