The Tories' Dilemma: 'Hard Brexit' or Continued Austerity

Mrs May appeared to think that she could do three impossible things on becoming Prime Minister: now she has come to realise that not only is each of them unfeasible in itself, but that they are mutually exclusive.

First, she did not even consider an alternative to the continuance of the Cameron-Clegg-Osborne austerity, so that had to be maintained, as near intact as possible.

Second, although she had been an unconvinced remainer, she was prepared to embrace the idea of a 'hard' Brexit: though she had no idea what this might mean, so she appointed not one, not two, but three Brexiteer Secretaries of State to come up with the policies that would be needed.

And thirdly, she wanted to be a 'compassionate conservative': at zero cost [because finding any 'new money' would, by definition, breach austerity].

Then she called an election in which she thought that she could defeat Labour purely on the grounds of the intellectual and moral deficiencies of the party's leader. Because he had decades of experience of not being a conformist or conventional politician, Corbyn almost won: and Mrs May had to clear out her inept kitchen cabinet and begin to respect ministers who she was reported to have wanted to dispense with.

Meanwhile Philip Hammond as Chancellor of the Exchequer was becoming buried in 'The Treasury View', a centuries-old tradition which insists that any new expenditure is unnecessary and any unnecessary expenditure must be opposed; regardless of the social and moral benefits that the expenditure is predicted to deliver to taxpayers. Thus he learned that stopping the free movement of people from the EU into the UK, and movement the other way, would cost billions of poundsworth of new expenditure in frontier police recruitment, training and salaries, and in the construction of immigration and emigration control points and the IT backup that would be needed to make such controls achievable at all. Add to that the cost of building modern port controls that could prevent smuggling and validate the contents, provenance, ownership, insurance and compliance with health-and-safety requirements [et cetera] of every item in every cargo and every private piece of luggage - and staffing them with men and women as tough as eighteenth-century revenue officers, in sufficient numbers, adequately well-trained and remunerated and backed up by the most advanced IT - that would be more billions.

A 'hard Brexit' would not only interrupt much trade with Europe, and permanently end more - it would thereby cause massive unemployment and demands for billions more in social payments. Most firms that trade significantly with Europe would experience catastrophic falls in sales, which would force some to cull their workforces and many to declare bankruptcy and their inability to pay their debts and their taxes. The government's income would plummet as the demands of a desperate population became clamorous. Not only would austerity have to be abandoned: government would become untenable in the context of democracy.

Thus minsters have been running around, meeting groups of representatives - particularly from the business communities - whom the May team had ignored in their first year in office. Now the government is indicating that Brexit will be 'soft', and nobody or no firm will find themselves at a 'cliff edge'. There will be a 'transition period' as long as Mr Barnier will be allowed to concede; followed by a shoddy compromise which lets the Treasury maintain at least the skeleton of austerity in place. On that basis of squalid surrender to the ghosts of Clegg and Osborne, a sort of exit from the EU Commission and Parliament, and a limitation of the powers of the European Court 'of Justice' [sic] will be found; and Britain will remain within the EU otherwise. Any alternative is unaffordable in the context of Treasury thinking: and The Treasury Rules: OK?

Leaving Politicians To It

A Greek journalist faces arrest and imprisonment for publicising a list of reputed avoiders of foreign-exchange regulations, with the imputation that many of these people were corrupt and/or tax evaders. Successive Greek governments have held, and apparently ignored, the list. A new super-tough budget has been laid before the parliament which will further impoverish the residue of the middle-income groups and increase unemployment throughout the age spectrum. Yet the challenges to the government come as ritualistic strikes and occasional riots, rather than as any movement with the potential to bring down the government. The so-called 'technocrats' [some of whom are classic eurorats] will continue to perform the charade of compliance with German demands for austerity that does not affect their own caste.

The British parliament last evening voted to demand that the Prime Minister should use his entire power and influence to bring about a real-term reduction in the European Union budget. A significant minority of the Conservative Members of Parliament voted for the motion; which nobody expects will have any effect other than to deepen ancient fissures within the tory party. Earlier in the day the government had orally accepted and institutionally shelved a Report by Lord Heseltine that proposed a reversal of forty [or more] years of centralising bureaucracy which was dedicated to the systematic destruction of industry around the country. Some parts of the former deputy prime minister's Report will receive some lip service: the Prime Minister may attend one or two meetings of a National Growth Council before it is handed down to Clegg and allowed to run into the sand; and there may be announcements - vitiated in the event - about the manner in which flows of funds already announced to support 'investment' will be publicised so that they can appear to be responding to the Heseltine proposals. As usual, the politicians will ignore the best advice and steer a course that avoids obvious day-by-day responsibility for company failures and the increasing dependency of the economy on imported manufactures. The process that Harold Macmillan condemned as "selling the family silver" back in the nineteen eighties continues, as beloved brands [most recently Branston Pickle] follow the utilities into alien ownership so that an outflow of revenue to brand-owners augments the flood of payments for imports.

Britain desperately needs a growth policy: but even more it needs a capitalist policy. The term capitalist is massively misunderstood. One of the most capitalist regimes in world history was that run by Stalin; in that no regime has comparably sacrificed human living standards, human rights and human lives in the interests of investing in the growth of industrial production. Since the invention of Economics, with its atomistic obsession with transactions and its determination to submit transactions to 'free market' conditions, 'capitalism' has been retained only as a term of political abuse. One needs to go back to the Political Economy that pre-dated Economics, as exemplified in the school textbook by Millicent Fawcett that featured in my last blog, to get an  understanding of why the concept of capitalism is a good and necessary central feature of economic thinking.

Heseltine's plan, even if it were to be adopted, would be useless without a monitoring organisation to ensure that all the investments that it supports are capitalistic. Heseltine comes close to recognising that it is essential to rebuild and consolidate the nation's capital; its capacity-to-produce material things. To do that the system needs to deliver the services [appropriate education, excellent workplace training, access to applicable research, real-world banking, positive and powerful trade unions, supportive planning rules and flexible trade regulations] that conduce to making things. In one of the last textbooks of sensible political economy Mrs Fawcett emphasised that a country will fail unless its economy maintains and develops - continually - enough capital to provide all that people demand [and can pay for]: either by producing the required commodities and services within the country or by selling exports that directly pay for the things and services that are imported. It will be a hugely difficult and prolonged task, to compensate for half a century of borrowing [both within the economy and from foreigners] and asset sales to pay for imports. It has seemed comfortable to generations of politicians to observe reports of a growth of transactions - which have increasingly represented statistics of material imports and of contracts that simply churned debts - and accept a delusion that the economy was growing. In a world where 'capitalism' and 'capitalist' have been terms of abuse, a concern with material reality became an irrelevance.

 In future bank lending, government investment, and investment by the few valid pension funds that survive, and all other flows of investment should be steered towards investments that really do strengthen the nation's capital. That requires not merely a radical shift of policy but also an intellectual revolution. The renewal of the economy cannot be entrusted to machine politicians. British politics will go the way of Greek, unless the inexorable decline into poverty is halted. Capitalism is the only way out of the crisis.

What is Spain Up To?

Spain has already inflicted huge economic sanctions on its citizens: 25% unemployment [at least], reduced pensions and increased age of retirement, underfunded schools and hospitals, bankrupt local authorities, tens of thousands of incomplete and unsold dwellings, increased taxes ... and the catalogue could go on and on. While the banks have borrowed from EU institutions and from foreign banks even in recent days, the markets are betting against the Spanish state being able to submit formally to the conditions that would be applied to a formal 'bailout' by the European Union, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Since it is generally understood that the conditions on any formal baliout would be very harsh, why should the Spanish government not have done what the Greeks did: take the bailout as soon as possible, and blame the Germans [and the rest of the EU]  for the harsh treayment meted out to the population?

Simplistically, Prime Minister Rajoy is asserted to be over-endowed with Spanish pride; which makes him exceedingly reluctant to submit to mere north Europeans. More realistically, he has hoped to be able to avoid a bailout altogether. Meanwhile, his government has demonstrated that the Spanish state is sufficiently robust to be able to enforce very hard economic policies. Most importantly he has emphasised and demonstrated the huge difference between the Spanish situation, and the popular response to it, and that of Greece. Spain has presented strong evidence against the domino theory.

Greece will some day fairly soon be forced to withdraw from the euro; but that need not precipitate a gaderene rush by specluators to force Portugal, Sapin or Italy also to fail to manage their economy withon the eurozone.

Whenever Spain now applies for a bailout, on conditions that it will partially be able to dictate, that will not be a signal for the progressive withdrawal of all the weaker southern states from the euro. Spain has not just bought time for itself to get agreed terms; it has ensured that the gulf between Greece and the rest has become consolidated. Yes, there are demonstrations verging on the riotous in Spain; dismay affects most of the population some of the time, and some of the population all of the time; but there is not yet the degree of hopelessness and despair that now characterises the vast majority of Greeks.

The whole situation is classically tragic, but redemption for Greece is vastly different - and much more painful to achieve - than is the possibility to turn the Spanish economy round within the eurozone.

The Truth About Immigration

Today's UK media carry stories that disclose - yet again - the infinite capacity of Economists for earning the contempt of the public. A think-tank, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research [habitually described by economic journalists as 'the respected NIESR' ] published a paper that asserted, unequivocally, that there is "no association" between higher immigration and the rise of joblessness in the UK.

Within a few hours the government's Migration Advisory Committee published a paper which declared that one Briton lost their job for every four non-EU migrants arriving over the past five years, which put 160,000 workers onto benefits. It also found that wage-rates for less-skilled jobs were pushed down by immigrant labour: while wages of higher-paid employees seemed to rise with immigrant numbers. This paper also indicated that further pressure would be put on living standards, particularly for the lowest-paid, because the inflow of immigrants would compete for housing [especially in London and the south-east] and cause upward pressure on rents and house prices.

Yesterday MigrationWatch - a pressure group opposed to 'excessive' immigration published its own findings, which were that: "Youth unemployment in the UK increased  by almost 450,000 from [the first quarter of] 2004  to [the third quarter of] 2011. Over the same period, numbers of workers from the A8 countries [the new entrants to the EU, who became free to enter the UK in 2004] grew by 600,000". MigrationWatch made the caveat that "Correlation is not, of course, proof of causation," but went on to make the crucial point that "given the positive employability characteristics and relative youth of migrants from these countries, it is implausible and counter-intuitive" to draw a conclusion that "A8 migration has had virtually no impact on UK youth unemployment."


Readers will have noticed that the data sets taken by the three reports are different. MigrationWatch focuses primarily on youth unemployment and the relative attractiveness to employers of the work ethic and numeracy  displayed by continentally-educated people, compared to the low literacy, negligible numeracy and unpreparedness for employment displayed by a very large proportion of young Britons [broadly regardless of ethnicity].  The government's committee compares total unemployment with the number of immigrants from outside the EU.   The NIESR took all migrants who were issued with national insurance numbers [which are a necessary condition for gaining legal employment] and compared their numbers with the pattern of unemployment among the pre-existing population. The NIESR noted also that the growth of juvenile unemployment in the UK had begun before 2004 [when A8 citizens gained full rights of entry] and reached greater heights after 2008 although east European immigration was reduced and some Poles and Slovaks went home.

Recruitment to jobs in general diminished during and after 2008 as the recession intensified. Reliable, hard-working east Europeans generally kept their jobs in greater numbers than did Brits, and the number of east European arrivals tailed off when the word reached potential migrants that opportunities in the UK had diminished.

Political correctness forbids 'decent' researchers from ascertaining which specific categories of immigrants get well-paid jobs, badly paid jobs or no jobs; beyond the differentiation between EU and non-EU that is sanctioned by the Brussels bureaucracy and the European courts. Since increasing numbers of immigrants from outside the EU obtain citizenship in other EU countries, then come to the UK, there is no implicit ethnic connotation to the EU non-EU differentiation even though the overwhelming majority of A8 migrants were white Europeans. Consequently bar-room assertions about some ethnic groups 'coming here for benefits and free houses, with no intention of working' remain untested, but the legends fester with repetition: and the political class avoid mentioning the matter even though it is a widely expressed concern 'on the doorstep' to political canvassers.

The net effect of the three reports is to serve no useful purpose: they present no clear guide for policy-makers and their different selection of data contributes to a confused cacophony that has long been characterised by the lack of any agreed basis for comparison. On this issue, quintessentially, the disparity between the dialogue that emanates from the political class and the dialogue that rumbles on among the electorate has become extreme and will some time soon create a major political problem that will tax the present generation of politicians to the all-to-apparent limits of their competency.

Work and Wages

With total unemployment in the United Kingdom well in excess of six million, including one in five of under-twenty-fives, the cost of maintaining them all - even at a low standard of living - is a major cause of the still-growing budget deficit. It is highly desirable that at least two million of those people should get jobs, raising their standard of living and paying taxes. There is much talk of creating those jobs; but staff are being shed from the civil service, the armed services and the health service, so it is hoped that other sectors of the economy should generate employment. The private sector - business - is showing little sign of major job creation. In the few segments of the market where there is opportunity for employment there is an evident employer preference for immigrant labour. The available jobs are mostly in entertainment, hospitality and services, where emphasis is placed on personal attributes of clean appearance and willingness to work hard at peak periods. Native British unemployed products of comprehensive schools are perceived by employers not to possess these characteristics. It is even reported that many graduates do not meet employers' requirements for literacy, articulateness. smartness and diligence.

Manufacturing industry has been through half a century of decline: many skills have died out and 'habits of industry' that used to be cited as a great attribute of British artisans have become extinct. There is a fashion for people to be given 'apprenticeships'. For many centuries apprentices used to work alongside craftsmen and learn skills on the job. In the twentieth century industrial apprenticeship took on a more institutional form, where apprentices [including graduate apprentices] were put through a sequence of jobs in the works in parallel with study part-time of relevant technical subjects. As industry diminished the good schemes attracted more applicants and now the few surviving exemplars [like that at Rolls-Royce] stand out as remarkable opportunities for employment. The 'real' schemes are highly competitive and attract excellent candidates: they bear no relationship - other than the use of the word apprentice - with the charade that is in mind for the masses. Without access to the appropriate industrial plant, or to experienced trainers, or to skilled supervisors the new apprenticeships will largely be classroom based, with simulated work situations and rare factory visits. Candidates will recognise it as a sham, and there is no chance of such a scheme creating a mass supply of skilled women and men who could operate new factories: even if the necessary capital and desirable patented product concepts could be conjured into existence.

The present government is following its predecessor in looking to 'the third sector' - not-for-profit firms, and charities - to create jobs, with financial assistance from the government. At a cost of billions of pounds, this will enable a few people to get useful job experience; and it will condemn hundreds of thousands to disillusion and cynicism. Unemployment is a horrible experience, even for a few months: when it lasts for years its psychologically and morally destructive. If the surrounding circumstances include fake apprenticeships, subsidised non-jobs in charity and a penal attitude by the state to claimants for benefits, the destructive impact of unemployment is enhanced. Only 'real' jobs in 'real' industry and commerce - and genuinely useful roles in charity and the public services - give job satisfaction. Such jobs are only created by the investment of capital and the engagement of protected intellectual property ik as defined in Personal Political Economy. Tragically, there is no sign that this is in the offing for the British people.

The USA also has a huge problem of unemployment, and many failed schools. Hundreds of thousands of the unemployed are dysfunctional from an employer perspective. But most of the employed in the USA work hard: and those who are seeking employment expect to work hard. The average US employee has many fewer days per years of annual holiday than do Britons or continental Europeans; and the torrent of Latino immigration ensures that employers can expect to get a full days work for the pay that they offer. Despite very significant de-industrialisation, the US remains a formidable centre of manufacturing, especially in high-value-added sectors. Nobody on the eastern shores of the Atlantic should read into America's unemployment statistics the same dire picture as is to be inferred from British data. The relationship of work to wages in the USA is an example from which Britain can learn beneficial lessons: any idea that 'they are in the same boat as we are' is deeply mistaken. Americans are right to be deeply concerned about the current state of  work in their country; but they have the means to ameliorate their relatively benign situation far more readily than we do in Britain.