Skip to main content

The political cost of repairing the UK economy

The UK's CPI annual inflation rate rose to 3.7% in December 2010. The RPI- which includes mortgage payments- rose to 4.8%. The Bank of England continues to hold the Bank rate at a record low of 0.5%, while issuing over £200 billion of reserves to pay for asset purchases. The banking system is being bailed out by a negative interest rate of close to 4%.

Yet to pay for this the United Kingdom has created record public sector deficits. According to the ONS, at the end of November 2010 total public debt- not counting the interventions to recapitalise the banking system- was £863.1 billion, or to put that into context, 58% of GDP. The current cost of those additional interventions is not small. It is currently estimated to be about another £850 billion, and although it is highly unlikely that the eventual total cost will be more than 10% of this number, for the present it is a sum that still requires to be financed for the next several years.

Total UK public sector debt is therefore about 120% of GDP.

However, the UK private sector debt numbers are far more scary. PWC estimated that at the end of 2009, total debt was already 540% of GDP, up from just 200% in 1987. More to the point it highlighted the sharp acceleration in total indebtedness since 2000. Slowing, never mind reversing these trends will be exceptionally difficult without major economic dislocation.

The primary driver of the huge surge in private sector debt was the dramatic increase in house prices over the same period. Since 1990, nominal house prices have doubled.

<span class=houseprices index">

So the exposure to house prices is now a critical driver of the UK economy. Rescuing the debtors has been the primary political as well as economic goal both of the Labour government of Gordon Brown and now the coalition.

Yet, the price of this rescue is undermining long term investment and destroying the value of the Pound as a store of wealth. despite the long delays, the recovery- however tentative it is at the moment- is now going to require higher interest rates.

Everyone knows this- which is why the cautious are delaying their moves in the housing market. Yet this is risking a further banking crisis- if house prices really stall again, then the government could be caught between the urgent need to cut their own deficit, the surge inflation that their own increase in VAT will help to fuel and the drastic loss of confidence that a major house price fall will engender. Then the UK will be back in the 1970s with Stagflation returning with a vengeance.

Certainly that is the message that Ed Balls- benefiting so well from the unfortunate publicity about Alan Johnson's marriage which proved a convenient moment for him to become shadow Chancellor- will be making time and again. Yet Ball himself, beyond insisting on the politically popular "No to Cuts" is not providing much salvation- his inflationary laxness will be even more dangerous in the long term.

Austerity is a necessary policy- even the most basic analysis of UK indebtedness shows that-but Balls will attack it in any way he can.

The problem is how to steer between the Scylla of stagflation and a house price meltdown and the Charybdis of a debt meltdown and an inflationary explosion.

I see no British politician yet speaking as though they understand the scale of the bind the UK is in. It certainly isn't Ed Balls, whose policies in government did so much to create this crisis in the first place.

Comments

Western Independent said…
"Elephant in the room" is a dreadful cliche but seems very appropriate - you might find my post earlier today of interest http://westernindependent.blogspot.com/2011/01/labour-another-problem-another-brother.html

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...