Autumn Statement 2013: Evaluating Osborne ... 15% successful!

Are the austerians right and the opponents of austerity proved wrong? Is Osborne's strategy vindicated?

Let's judge by his own standards. In June 2010, just as the ink had dried on the coalition agreement, George Osborne rushed to the House of Commons to deliver an 'Emergency Budget'.

"It supports a strong enterprise-led recovery. It rewards work. And it protects the most vulnerable in our society. Yes it is tough; but it is also fair."

With this rhetoric, Osborne opened his remarks. But the devil was in the detail of the accompanying forecasts. So how has he done 3 years on? We evaluate:

Osborne predicted that economic growth would be 2.8% this year - a target he may get close to (we'll find out next month), but that was on the back on growth of 2.8% last year as well (instead, in 2012 the economy grew by just 0.2%). The OBR predicts that growth will be 1.4% in 2013 (but this is still an underestimate)

Far from being back on track, the UK economy still lags 2.5% below where we were in 2008. So at best half marks for Osborne on economic growth. And that's before we factor in growing concerns about the sustainability of George's recovery. Half marks.

• Economic growth 0.5/1

That same June 2010 forecast predicted that average wage growth in 2013/14 would be 4.9%. With average wage 'growth' currently at just 0.7% there is no gentle way to put this, that was woefully wrong.

While this year the FTSE100 directors will see their seven-figure salaries increase by an average of 14%, for the rest of us there is no recovery. People's incomes have been cut in real terms. The ONS points out that the median household income has dropped 6.4% for working age households over the last five years. Fail.

• Wages 0/1

Unemployment has declined marginally in recent months, but is still high at 7.6% of the economically active population. That figure however conceals stubbornly high youth unemployment and long-term unemployment - failed by shambolic government programmes.

In 2010, Osborne told us unemployment would today be just 6.8%. So 250,000 fewer people should be unemployed today had Osborne hit his target. Fail.

• Unemployment 0/1

Given Osborne erroneously said he would deal with "our country's record debts" (they were nowhere near record levels) with austerity, one would assume he would have at least had some success in reducing our debt (or at least stemmed the rate of rising debt).

By now, predicted Osborne in 2010, our debt should be 73.7% of GDP. Instead it's 75.5%.

But much of that is because GDP is far lower than predicted, so not even half marks for getting close, so quarter marks.

• Debt 0.25/1

The reason the Chancellor is not reducing the debt, is because the deficit has not been closed at anything like the rate he predicted. By now the deficit should have been just 5% of GDP. Today Osborne announced it would be 6.8%. In cash terms they predicted £63 billion in 2010, but today it's £111bn - 75% higher than the 2010 forecast. So he'll borrow £198 billion more than he planned. Fail.

• Deficit 0/1

Overall 0.75 out of 5 (or 15%)

Should Osborne be praying for the economy to stall?

After three quarters of economic growth, George Osborne has already transitioned from cautious optimism to full-on self congratulation. "The UK has been singled out as an example of the improvement and there is recognition that we have stuck to our economic plan", he said last month.

Let's leave aside that he hasn't stuck to his plan at all (the deficit was forecast in 2010 to be far lower today than it is, and as a result of two flatlining years he is borrowing over £200 billion more than planned). Let's even underplay that even today's public debt figures £8.1 billion this October, down from £8.2 billion for October last year, are hardly impressive.

Nevertheless the level of UK economic growth in the last three quarters (nine months) has surprised and exceeded most independent forecasts. The Bank of England declared earlier this week that
the UK is in "sustained recovery".

Three consecutive quarters of reasonable growth (by historical standards) is fairly hard to dismiss. What economists now disagree about is not whether recovery has been sustained, but whether it  is sustainable.

There's a good analysis of this question by the Independent's Ben Chu here. The key point is that the recovery is driven (largely) by debt, which has been both encouraged (through schemes like Help to Buy) and enforced (through declining real wages, benefits and high unemployment). As the chart below, personal debt remains at crisis-era highs

The question therefore is can growth continue with debt at high levels and real incomes declining?  The unstable retail sales figures - with October registering a fall that confounded predictions - are a warning sign to the optimists.

So the question is whether the recovery will stall - due to people reining in their spending without any compensating surge in government or corporate investment - or will it continue to grow as people take on ever greater debts?

If the latter is the case, then the ultimate result may be a sharp crash, caused by unsustainable levels of debt. That scenario should make George Osborne pray for the economy to stall (while he devises a sustainable growth strategy - something some of his opponents have been advocating and outlining since 2010).

Recovery? What recovery?

by Luke James

Unions reminded backslapping Tory leaders today that Britain is in the grip of the worst economic crisis in a century despite 0.6 per cent growth in the last quarter.

Tiny boosts in construction and manufacturing sector were partly behind the slight respite for the battered economy.

Smug PM David Cameron claimed on Twitter that the figures showed Britain is "on the right track" and insisted his government is "building an economy for hardworking people."

Tory Chancellor George Osborne said Britain's gross domestic product (GDP) was "better than forecast" but failed to mention that it is still 3.3 per cent below pre-recession levels.

TUC leader Frances O'Grady reminded the pair that the economy has grown half as much as they boasted it would when they cobbled together the Con-Dem coalition in 2010.

"It's a measure of how poor the economy is faring that this level of growth is being welcomed," she said.

"With workers in the midst of the longest wage squeeze since the 1870s and unemployment still over 2.5 million, it certainly doesn't feel like a recovery to many people."

Labour shadow chancellor Ed Balls pointed out "this is also the slowest recovery for over 100 years" despite the fractional shift forwards.

He said Britain would need to seal 1.3 per cent growth every quarter for the next two years "simply to catch up all the ground we have lost under David Cameron and George Osborne."

Overall output in construction and manufacturing remains more than 10 per cent below pre-recession levels despite progress in the last quarter.

Manufacturing recovered by 0.4 per cent after slumping consecutively for the last six quarters and the 0.9 per cent rise in construction is eclipsed by the 1.8 per cent fall in the first quarter.

Construction union Ucatt labelled the figures "disappointing" and general secretary Steve Murphy reissued his call for "urgent" investment in infrastructure projects and social housing.

There was also a 0.6 per cent growth in the service sector but concerns were raised that companies are hoarding billions of pounds that could be invested to spark real growth.

Left Economics Advisory Panel co-ordinator Andrew Fisher said privateers have amassed the surplus, equal to 6 or 7 per cent of GDP, thanks to successive cuts to corporation tax and by slashing workers' wages.

"Companies are quite logically refusing to invest substantially in new products, services or jobs at a time when consumer demand is depressed by falling living standards," he said.

This article first appeared in the Morning Star

Is the UK economy on the up?

In the 2013 Spending Round in June George Osborne said he was taking decisions to "secure the recovery". Yesterday talk of recovery increased when the IMF revised its prediction for UK growth for this year from 0.7% to 0.9%.

However the same upward adjustment in UK growth is not replicated globally. Last April the IMF was predicting 4.1% growth in 2013, now it says just 3.1% will be achieved. This may be reflected in the UK by another set of disastrous figures for manufacturing and industrial production (down 2.9% and down 2.3% respectively in the last year), and a widening of the UK's already substantial trade deficit. So much for the economic rebalancing Osborne promised in 2010 ...

The extra 0.2% growth the IMF is predicting is not much to get excited about - especially when in 2010 Osborne's newly formed Office for Budget Responsibility was predicting growth would be 2.9% this year. However, the IMF revision is among a number of positive signals about the UK economy.

Last week the Services PMI - a survey of purchasing managers in the services sector (which accounts for 75% of the UK economy) - indicated growth at its fastest rate for over 2 years. The respected and independent National Institute for Economic and Social Research predicts that growth in Q2 of 2013 will be 0.6% (while Markit suggests 0.5%).

The prospects for George Osborne therefore seem to be looking up. However, all may not be what it seems. With no let up in the decline of household income, what is supporting this stronger growth in the services sector? As Duncan Weldon shows clearly and insightfully, household income is  falling, but household spending is rising - eating into savings that recovered after the 2008 crash, but are now declining again (see graph below).

What does this mean for the sustainability of the nascent UK recovery and for households? Well, as Weldon concludes, "a falling savings ratio really is underpinning our recovery. The 'new economic model' looks increasingly like the old one". This is even more so the case with the increasingly unreality of rising house prices, underpinned by the bubble-inflating Help to Buy scheme.

The overall households savings ratio masks the reality that for many households they are not eating into their savings, but in fact sinking deeper into debt (good news for payday loan companies like Tory funders Wonga). For many people - including the 500,000 that are reliant on food banks - there is a real crisis emerging. Many are struggling to pay rents - especially with tax credit and housing benefit cuts to those in and out of work.

With pay continuing to rise below inflation, and benefits similarly capped and being cut in cash terms for hundreds of thousands of households, the recovery looks very fragile. There can be no sustainable recovery through increased consumer debt. That way paves a renewed round of loan, credit and mortgage defaults - and with the state lacking the capacity to perform the sort of bailouts that were necessary in 2008 and 2009.

The economy may well be on an upward trend at the present time and this could extend into the latter part of the year. But while economic growth in 2013 is likely to far outsrip the OBR's modest 0.6% prediction, in 2014 growth of 1.8% looks perilous, as does 2.3% in 2015.

The upturn in the UK economy is built (again) on an inflating debt bubble, and the longer it inflates the more damaging the final bang when it bursts. As the manufacturing figures show, there is no evidence of rebalancing, no prospect of a revival in workers' incomes (through pay or benefits), and no substantial investment that could at least stimulate medium term growth and create jobs (in fact unemployment remains stubbornly around 2.5 million).

So while Osborne will be cheering green shoots and patting himself on the back - most gratuitously at party conference in the autumn - the underlying problems of the UK economy remain unresolved, and any temporary respite may only be storing up greater problems for the future.

Borrowing for growth - some advice for Ed

Earlier this week Labour leader Ed Miliband made the case (somewhat haphazardly) for more short-term borrowing to stimulate the economy.

Not unexpectedly, Miliband's reluctance to admit that an alternative to austerity might involve borrowing was seized upon by the the right wing press.

Miliband's unease reflects a battle within Labour that has yet to be won. Seumas Milne analyses that ongoing political fight in his Guardian column. As Milne correctly observes:

"The Tories want to lure Labour into signing up for the same medicine – or a mildly watered down variant – as they did in the far more benign economic environment of 1997.

"If Miliband and Ed Balls (who still defends the 1997 decision to stick to Tory spending limits) fall into that trap, it would be a disaster – both for Labour's election prospects and the chances of rebuilding an economy that delivers for the heavily squeezed majority".

But I want to look at the economic timidity (and the power of the Tories' economic framing) that made Ed stutter in that interview.

Ed should have responded by saying this:

"Yes of course it means borrowing - but borrowing to grow the economy. George Osborne is borrowing over £240 billion more than he said, our debt is rising, because his policies are failing. He has to borrow for his failure, we would borrow for growth."

The graph to the right shows how Osborne's plan set out in his emergency budget has faltered - as many predicted it would - due to the self-defeating nature of austerity policies in an economy with already weak demand.

Labour should be ramming this home. The choice - framed by the Tories and put to Labour - is not between cutting spending or borrowing more. It is between borrowing for failure or borrowing for growth.

Ed Miliband should have had these arguments to his fingertips. The Labour leadership still seem caught in this false trap between borrowing or austerity. This stems from the acceptance of another narrative that Labour borrowing and investment in public services is the reason for the deficit today. It's not, no matter what economic illiterates like Liam Byrne scrawl.

In office New Labour spent less as a percentage of GDP than the governments of Thatcher and Major (as this graph shows) and had reduced the national debt prior to the economic collapse caused by the banking crisis (as this graph shows).

So while Ed should swat aside the silly jibes about Labour's spending, saying:

"The last Labour government invested in public services, while the governments of Thatcher and Major spent more on social failure, just like David Cameron's government today."

Finally, Labour's borrowing plans. All the World at One furore was caused by Ed Miliband's plan for a temporary VAT cut - "The point I was making yesterday was to get growth going by cutting VAT, then over time you will see borrowing actually fall. That was the point I was making."

There's a good solid case for permanently reducing VAT - a regressive flat tax - and redistributing the tax burden onto those on higher incomes (e.g. restoring 50% tax rate) or by taxing wealth (mansion tax). Assuming some revenue neutral combination of the above, there is a stimulus effect because poorer people have to spend their income, whereas the rich invest their surplus wealth. Taxing wealth of course unlocks capital.

However, a temporary VAT cut (and the timid message it sends) is hardly the most effective way of stimulating demand.

Why not instead argue for a mass housebuilding programme - that would create thousands of construction jobs (a sector where there is excess capacity) and more in the supply chain. Getting people into work (or more work) means more taxes and fewer benefits.

Building new homes, with a hefty chunk of council homes, would also meet an urgent social need and provide revenue to local government through rents. The knock-on impact of furnishing new homes would also boost the retail sector.

Housing is of course only one example, but there are others from new energy infrastructure, energy efficiency programmes to new transport networks.

By enmeshing economic stimulus with meeting social need, Labour could then mobilise thousands of people into backing their demands. But that needs the political fight to be fought and won within the party ... back to Seumas.

Measuring the economy - rethinking the growth obsession

Yesterday the OECD predicted the UK economy would contract in the first quarter of 2012. It led the news for a while (pre-Galloway), vying for contention with pricier pasties and petrol pump panic.

The state of the economy is a vastly more important issue than both of those things, yet the way in which it is reported perhaps explains why people are more interested in pasties - and perhaps why they're right to be.

Firstly, we should define 'recession'. A technical recession is widely agreed to be two consecutive quarters of 'negative growth'.

Negative growth is a ridiculous term: economists' jargon when the English language provides ample alternatives: contraction, shrinkage, reduction. I personally favour 'contraction'.

At the end of each quarter (of a year, i.e. three months), the government (and indeed governments around the world) announce the level of economic growth - the change in our gross domestic product (GDP).

GDP is value of all the goods and services produced which includes private and public consumption, government expenditure and investments, as well as exports less imports.

So if there is economic growth then GDP has risen (relative to the last time it was recorded). If GDP has declined, then there is contraction (aka negative growth).

So back to the OECD, which predicted that in the first three months of 2012 the UK economy will have contracted by 0.1% - following a contraction of 0.3% in the last three months of 2011.

Leave aside that many close watchers of UK economic trends think the OECD has got it wrong anyway (especially after the economic boost of all the panic petrol buying), but even if the UK economy has contracted by 0.1%, what does that mean?

Well we know what it means technically: that the value of all the goods and services produced has contracted by 0.1% in the last three months. And if that is for a second consecutive quarter, as would be the case in the UK currently, then it would be a technical recession.

Somewhat illogically the economy is not in recession if it contracts by 2% in one quarter, grows by 0.1% the next and then contracts by 1% the one after. Yet two consectutive quarters of 0.1% contraction are a 'recession', even though the former case is worse.

So it's clear to me we should change our definition of recession to something that more accurately tells us the state of the economy: so how about a technical recession being redefined as contraction over an annual basis. In other words, if we look at the average of the last four quarters (or year, as most people know it).

But what does any of this mean to anyone personally or - to be less individualistic - to a community or to the economy?

Is growth that relevant? What does Mr Wilson or Ms Patel do when they hear the economy has contracted by 0.6%? A: About the same as they do when they hear the FTSE has dropped 1%. Fuck all, because it doesn't really much matter (and there's not much they can do about it).

What matters to people is their own living standards, the inequality in their community, the level of unemployment. And surely we (as fellow socialist readers of this blog) want an economy and economic measures that treat people as paramount.

So here's what's important: how does the change in your income relate to the change in inflation? That matters whether you're in waged work or receiving out of work benefits. It measures whether your living standards have risen or fallen.

Or what about the gap between rich and poor? Numerous researchers including Wilkinson & Pickett and Danny Dorling have shown the damaging effects of inequality on life chances through a variety of metrics.

And then there's unemployment - undoubtedly bad because of what it means for the individuals concerned, and also economically inefficient because it means we are paying for talent to be left idle (receiving benefits) instead of enabling that person to contribute to the economy (pay taxes).

So instead of measuring badly what matters less, why not prioritise measuring what matters most:

• Living standards
• Inequality
• Unemployment

Because next month (on 25 April), despite the OECD's prediction, I suspect that the news will be reporting that the economy has returned to growth (probably only 0.1-0.4%) and Osborne will be welcoming it as a new dawn and an endorsement of austerity - only for the economy to contract in the second quarter.

This obsession with growth encourages politicians (as those from all parties did) to ignore rising inequality and do nothing about unsustainable debt-fuelled growth.

As Ann Pettifor said on Newsnight (watch online) (discussing the OECD prediction) the government should have used the budget "to spend on infrastructure, which would create jobs to create the income to pay back the debts".

That way, we'd reduce unemployment, increase living standards, reduce inequality and, also, generate stable economic growth.

The reality is that Osborne's austerity policies mean rising unemployment, falling living standards for most, and rising inequality. Bad for people and bad for the economy.

If we, as the left, want a new economy then we should be emphasising new ways of measuring its performance too.

Unemployment and Osborne: the crisis deepens

On 14 September the horror of this government’s austerity policies was brought into sharper relief with the publication of unemployment statistics showing unemployment has breached 2.5 million again.

But that figure hides more worrying underlying trends: in addition to the 2.5 million unemployed are nearly 1.3 million working part-time who want full-time jobs (up 15% in the past year) and over half a million working temporary contracts who want a permanent job. In effect therefore 4.4 million people are looking for work (aside from anyone in work looking to change job). Youth unemployment is the highest on record, while women’s unemployment is at its highest since 1988.

To compound this misery further the number of vacancies sank to just 453,000 – meaning there are about 10 people chasing every job. In the areas of highest unemployment (the north-east and London) that figure is likely to be considerably higher.

Despite Osborne’s rhetoric about the white knight of the private sector coming to the rescue, Tory cuts and austerity are damaging private sector jobs too. On 15 September retail sales data for August showed a further contraction. With unemployment rising, wages falling in real terms and benefits and tax credits being cut, how could the service sector expand?

The unemployment rise was entirely due to the government’s cuts programme as data showed the public sector had shed 110,000 jobs in the last three months alone. Ironically despite rising unemployment, the government is shedding jobcentre staff and even embarking on another round of jobcentre closures – including in Camberwell, south London.

The attack on welfare is not just on the staff who administer it though, but on people trying to claim and maintain a claim for jobseeker’s allowance (JSA). On 15 September, the National Audit Office showed that the take-up rate for JSA is just 53% - meaning there are over a million people entitled who are not claiming. Many will be too proud or ashamed to claim, given the stigma successive governments have heaped on welfare, or they might have been pushed out of the system by the increased conditionality applied.

Osborne and the Tory-led government are in turmoil. Increasing unemployment means rising welfare bills and falling tax revenues, exacerbating the deficit crisis they pledge to be resolving. Their solution will be to cut more, and the downward spiral will accelerate – sucking in thousands of wasted lives as collateral damage in Osborne’s failing economic experiment.

A version of this article will appear in the October issue of Labour Briefing

King: Recovery will not happen soon

From today's Morning Star by John Millington



Bank of England governor Mervyn King admitted today that the economy would not recover to pre-recession levels for at least the next three years.



Mr King gave a damning assessment of the economy at a packed press conference in London, claiming that it was vulnerable to "headwinds" from enormous debt overhangs from public and private debt.



He also warned that despite any countermeasures taken by the government, Britain would remain vulnerable to fluctuations in energy and other import prices.



"The outlook for growth in the world economy has deteriorated and, largely as a consequence, near-term growth prospects at home are somewhat weaker," he said.



"The intensification of sovereign fiscal concerns has been associated with renewed funding stresses for banks which are contributing to high borrowing spreads, tight credit conditions for households and smaller companies and exceptionally weak credit and money growth in the UK."



The Bank of England governor also said that the euro-zone disaster in recent weeks had raised challenges for Britain.



"The greatest risks to the prospects for global demand come from the euro area and the substantial challenges faced by several member countries as they seek to ensure the sustainability of their fiscal positions and preserve the stability of their banking systems," he said.



Slashing growth forecasts, Mr King said that inflation was likely to hit 5 per cent by autumn and not reduce by 2013 at the earliest.



"Inflation has been pushed up by rises in energy and import prices and the increase in the standard rate of VAT," he added.



Mr King also said that Bank of England monetary policy could do "very little."



In a stark omission, Mr King refused to speculate on the prospects of a double-dip recession and added living standards would only be squeezed further if import and export prices rose.



Leap co-ordinator Andrew Fisher said: "Demand has been suppressed by unemployment, falling wages of those in work and consumer inflation.



"Until those issues are addressed - and there is no prospect of that from this government - then the crisis will continue and exacerbate.



"Politicians are proving themselves entirely powerless in standing up to those destroying our economies - the speculating financiers, bankers and corporate executives hiking prices to maintain profit margins."

"There is an overpowering logic in putting people back to work"

Letter in today's Independent from Kelvin Hopkins MP

Stephen King's "Economic Outlook" (4 April) did at least cast doubt on Osborne's pipedream that savage cuts in public spending will usher in a private-sector supply-side economic recovery.

Price Waterhouse Coopers estimate that every job lost in the public sector will mean another job lost in the private sector, so if 450,000 jobs in the public sector are lost, we could be looking at close on a million extra unemployed some three years hence. It could actually be worse than that with powerful downward multiplier effects kicking in.

King goes on to reject the Keynesian alternative, too, suggesting that whatever governments do, we're all doomed. He should be reminded that in 1945, with gross government debt four times larger than now, Labour and subsequent Conservative governments spent their way out of debt by maintaining high levels of employment, thus maximising tax receipts and minimising the bill for benefits. The National Health Service was created, living standards rapidly rose, and inequality was reduced. More of the same now would have the same effect, so why not just do it?

The alternative is to leave millions of ordinary people wishing to consume goods and services but without the income to do so, and millions of people willing to produce those goods and services but unable to do so because they are unemployed.

There is an overpowering logic in putting those people back to work. That cannot happen unless the government takes action to create jobs, raising spending in the most labour-intensive areas such as construction and the public services. Annual deficits and Britain's gross debt would then start to fall just as they did in the quarter century after 1945.

Kelvin Hopkins MP (Lab, Luton North), House of Commons, London SW1

Irish budget won't stop the rot

The Irish Parliament’s vote to implement a further, more savage €6 billion programme of spending cuts and tax increases has done nothing to stop the worsening debt crisis transforming the political landscape throughout Europe and beyond.

Quite the opposite. As Ireland follows Greece, and with Portugal and Spain jostling for position in the queue for aid, the conditions of the Intenational Monetary Fund-sponsored package for the Irish Republic are reverberating throughout the continent. And the pressure is mounting across the Atlantic too.

In the United States, Democrats are in open revolt against President Obama’s deal with the Tea Party-inspired Republicans to continue Bush’s 10-year-old tax breaks for the wealthy, which were widely expected to be allowed to expire at the end of the year.

This proposed new deal is part of the political price for agreement on a further debt-funded stimulus. But the markets are worried, and the cost of US borrowing has started to rise.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn the managing director of the IMF says the “piecemeal” country-by-country approach can’t solve the crisis but Germany’s chancellor Angela Merkel is not alone in blocking proposals for a Europe wide rescue scheme. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders far-right Freedom party teamed up with the so-called Socialist Party to oppose the deal for Ireland.

For the Irish people, the new budget slashes social welfare benefits, public pensions and capital projects, whilst forcing the 45% of low wage earners to pay income tax for the first time in order to rescue the banks and pay the interest on government bonds.

Michael Noonan, finance spokesman for the centre-right Fine Gael party stated the obvious: "This budget is the budget of a puppet government who are doing what they have been told to do by the IMF, the EU Commission and the European Central Bank."

But what he didn’t say is that the demands of these agencies are themselves orchestrated and conducted by the much more powerful forces at work in the rapidly contracting global capitalist economy.

Even as the captive Irish government was applauding itself, warnings of further mass assaults could be detected in the absurdly optimistic growth forecasts underpinning the new budget.

Finance Minister Brian Lenihan pins Irish hopes on gross domestic product national income (GDP) expanding by 1.7 percent next year, nearly double the European Commission's forecast of 0.9 percent.

The government is forecasting growth of 3.2 percent in 2012, 3.0 percent in 2013 and 2.8 percent in 2014, but Danny McCoy, head of the Irish Business and Employers Confederation said he saw little in the budget to help job creation or restore economic competitiveness.

In reality, governments throughout the world are in a competitive race to destroy living standards, driven by the needs of an economic system of global corporations competing for declining profits as markets shrink and collapse.

The crisis began when credit-funded stimulus reached its limits. Political parties of the left and right are ganging up together to design and implement “austerity” programmes that can only accelerate the process of contraction. Despite the rhetoric of recovery it is what they are required to do.

Campaigns to resist the assault on people’s lives must be brought together with the democratic and legislative means to replace the moribund capitalist system rather than patch it up. People’s Assemblies can begin to construct a richer form of democratic control based on social ownership and not-for-profit production and finance. Check out A World to Win’s proposals for transforming social relations in our new Beyond Resistance booklet.

Gerry Gold
Economics Editor
reposted from www.aworldtowin.net

One Million Climate Jobs

Earlier this week I went to the launch of the new and expanded 'One Million Climate Jobs' pamphlet, which sets out a strategy to solved both the economic and environmental crises.

In 50 pages it sets out a comprehensive argument for funding one million climate jobs now. It argues that the jobs and investment can be funded by the reduced unemployment and extra tax revenue from getting one million people back into work, and from addressing the tax gap. The investment required is just £18 billion - a fraction of the £1.3 trillion that bailed out the banking system. As Jonathan Neale, the pamphlet's editor, said at the launch,

"if the planet was a bank they would save it"

It argues that the dangers of abrupt climate change require us to act now to reduce our polluting ways. It is estimated that the one million climate jobs, costing just £18 billion could cut UK emissions by 80% in just 20 years, but the pamphlet is realistic: "of course cuts in the UK on their own will make little difference to global climate change. But if we campaign for a million new jobs, and win them, people all over the world will see what we have done".

The jobs themselves cover our electricity and energy production; refitting homes, public buildings and businesses, and building new homes to strict environmental regulations; building new transport infrastructure; as well as other industries. As Philip Pearson from the TUC pointed out, we have lost over one million manufacturing jobs in the last decade. This is the industrial strategy we need.

The pamphlet concludes with a chapter on what you can do. As John McDonnell MP, speaking at the launch, said:

"we need greens and trade unionists campaigning alongside each other, and to become one another"

The pamphlet is produced by the Campaign against climate change trade union group and is sponsored by the CWU, PCS, TSSA and UCU trade unions. Free download here or order from Bookmarks (£2.50)

Osbornomics unravels

Look beyond the big society rhetoric and there's a very flawed theory at the heart of George Osborne's chancellorship. It was outlined in the June 2010 Budget, when Osborne advoacted:

"An economy where the state does not take almost half of all our national income, crowding out private endeavour"

This 'crowding out' theory managed to infiltrate the independent Office for Budget Responsibility which stated in June that although the government's cuts would cost 600,000 public sector jobs, with a knock-on loss of 700,000 in the private sector, the private sector would also create 1.6 million jobs over the same four year period (a net gain of 300,000 jobs).

However, a report published by Pricewaterhousecoopers today shows in fact that the private sector will only create 1 million jobs over the four years, so that becomes a net loss of 0.3m jobs. It undermines Osborne's claim that cutting the public sector can be compensated by private sector growth (definitely not in a weak economy). I think the PWC report still might be a bit optimistic.

Data released since the Budget seem to be proving the PWC right and Osborne wrong. Both the IMF and the Bank of England have downgraded UK growth prospects. As the Morning Star points out, both the British Chamber of Commerce and British Retail Consortium have warned that growth in the service sector had been "slow" and was showing no signs of picking up before the VAT rise in January next year.

BCC chief economist David Kern said: "The dismal performance of the service sector is particularly disturbing since it occurs even before VAT is due to rise to 20 per cent."

It goes to show cutting the public sector won't 'make room' for the private sector, but will sap demand and weaken the private sector too.

For an excellent brief history and demolition of 'crowding out' theory see Aditya Chakrabortty's piece in the Guardian earlier this month.

Update: There's more on this story in the Morning Star, with quotes from Len McCluskey and Dave Prentis.