Newspapers understate the borrowing by reporting government spin

I have been reading the Sunday papers about the economy and wonder why I bother to. Several of them rightly condemn the government for borrowing too much, but they all use Ministers’ own figures in the press releases and budget statement rather than reading the much larger and doubtless more accurate figures they had to put out in the small print of the budget book.

They tell us brrowing will reach 8% of National Income next year. Wakey,Wakey. The PBR book shows the government is already borrowing more than 10% of National Income this year. You can’t leave out all the borrowing to buy banks and bank shares, as the Chancellor did in his misleading presentation. The Chancellor said he would borrow a large £78 billion this year. His supporting book says it will be an eye watering £157 billion. Why can’t journalists report these simple and worrying facts?

If Economics editors and Business leader writers can’t be bothered to read the detailed 200 plus pages of the PBR they could at least read this website to avoid these howlers. They should know by now you cannot trust Ministerial figures.

UK Financial Investments Limited

Readers of this site will be hearing a lot more about this new “arm’s length, commercial” company “wholly owned by the government” (on behalf of you and me, the taxpayers, who are paying for it).

It has been set up to own our shares in RBS, LLoyds/TSB/HBOS, Northern Rock and Bradford and Bingley. It will own assets worth well in excess of the annual National Income of the country. It will be responsible for a major share of all bank loans and deposits in the UK, and will have large operations overseas as well.

Its success or failure will determine what kind of economic future we will all enjoy. Any sensible person wishes it well, as it is too big for it be comfortable if it fails. In a way what it does is now more important than what most Ministers do, as its reach extends into a major portion of all business and private transactions, and its stance on the availability of credit and cash will determine how long and deep the recssion is going to be. As someone who opposed the nationalisations which underlie its establishment, I now earnestly hope it can do what they say they want it to do, to protect the taxpayer and ease the credit crunch. If it loses around 1% of the assets it takes on it will lose us the annual defence budget. If it loses us around 3% it has lost us a year’s NHS budget. If it is too tough on customers, it could lose us thousands of jobs as businesses go into bankruptcy.

The Treasury is currently advertising for Non Executive Directors. We are told they are to “protect and create value for the taxpayer as shareholder with due regard to the maintenance of financial stability and to act in a way which promotes competition”. That will require very talented people, who understand the complex political and economic forces which will play on this very public leviathan, and who can see a way of balancing the need to make a profit with the requirement to lend more to people and businesses currently in distress. They are looking for people with experience of fund management, retail or wholesale banking. That makes sense, but they will also need to see the wider picture and to appreciate the pressures on this unique holding company to perform in non commercial as well as commmercial ways.

Are the three objectives compatible and possible? Only with great dfficulty. To create more financial stability at the moment requires more to be lent to a range of businesses who will find meeting the interest bills difficult during the worst of the recession. Being fair to competitors means that state supported banks must not offer concessionary lending using access to cheap money from the taxpayer that other banks cannot obtain. The investments in the government portfolio might need more to be written off their balance sheets, but large write offs at the outset coulld be anti competitive, giving the state banks the edge from access to public support to allow large write offs.

I will be commenting on what they do do and what they should do as this story evolves. All those watching the day by day exchange of soundbites in the Westminster village need to keep an eye on this new collosus, as it will in no small measure determine what happens next to our housing market, our small businesses and much of the economy.

David Cameron and Damian Green

I was pleased to see David Cameron speaking out in the News of the World today concerning the defence of our liberties through Parliament. The silence of the Prime Minister is eerie. I seem to remember him telling us he wished to re-estabish Parliament at the centre of our political life. We all looked forward to that after the damage to our democracy perpetrated in the Blair years. Here, Prime Minister is your chance. Make a statement about Parliamentry privilege and the role of Opposition as soon as we are back next week. Otherwise David Cameron will have to develop in the Commons what he has had to start in the newspapers, as once again this government has packed Parliament off on its holidays.

Some advice for Mr Mandelson

I hear this morning he is drawing up a list of companies that the government would need to assist if they get into financial difficulties.
PLEASE DON’T. Such a list could only be damaging. If it got out it could start a run on the share prices of certain companies. It will divide the business world into the elect to be saved and the reprobate to fail. The last thing we need is such a division, and such back handed help.
Please also remember that now the governemnt owns RBS it is very overstretched financially itself. There are limits to how many commercial companies can be bailed out by a government planning to borrow over £150 billion this year already.

The nature of democracy

A democracy needs a strong Parliamentary Opposition to flourish. Democratic governments should seek to defeat their Opposition in open debate, and by following policies which are demonstrably in the interests of the majority. They should not seek to prevent, stifle or subvert the Opposition by undemocratic means.

Most of us want to live in a plural society where we can enjoy free speech. The three central rules of democracy are:

1. Everyone lives under the law, including the lawmakers and government officials.
2. We settle our many disagreements by argument and discussion, where possible finding an answer which does the most good to the many and the least harm to the few. The one privilege Ministers enjoy is they can change the law for the future as they see fit, subject to Parliamentary support.
3. Where we cannot reach agreement, we settle differences by votes in Parliament, periodically asking the people to vote on who should carry out this task for them. Sensible governments respect minorities and seek to grant them freedom to disagree wherever possible.

The majority is happy with this system because they can have their way. The minority will be happy with it if they see that the law is fairly and fearlessly applied to all, and if there is a chance that they can through democratic means persuade people and MPs in the majority to come round to their way of thinking. This system allows evolution of policy through changes in public opinion, and allows peaceful development through a fiesty but fist free exchange of views. Change can occur by influencing the government, or by changing it in an election. There is no need for revolution or violent overthrow of those in authority.

This government is not popular. It would be wise to recognise that people want more freedom of information, more challenge to the executive, more lively debate, not less. That is why the arrest of Damian Green shocked people. When I was a Minister I offered civil service briefs to my Labour Shadows so we could have better informed debates. I asked them how much time they wanted to disagree with the main things I was proposing and let them have that. I was proud of what I was trying to do and happy to debate it. I thought they had every right to disagree, and to try to persuade people otherwise. It is a great pity that on so many occasions this government lacks the confidence to take its case to the public through Parliament, and is constantly looking for ways to close the debate down. It will be one of the reasons why people tire of it and throw it out.

If the Prime Minister is a democrat he will see the danger of the course of action unfolding concerning Mr Green. He will be worried that anti terror laws (which were imposed in partisan style aginst the wishes of many of us) are being used against a range of people who are in no sense terrorists or credible terror suspects. He will take a day off from the economic crisis and discuss with his Home Secretary how these anti terror laws are damaging the civil liberties of many law abiding people, and propose changes.

When I was a partisan Shadow Cabinet member whose duty was to try to make one departmental group of Ministers accountable on a day by day basis, I was aware that some of my opponents did not think I had the right to do such things and were looking for ways to use the law to close me down. It was not a pleasant feeling, but it was important for democracy to carry on behaving like a proper Opposition anyway.

Figures on Government correspondence reveal no major demand for Identity Cards

In a speech to the Social Market Foundation earlier this month, the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith claimed that “as she goes round the country, she regularly has people coming up to her and saying they don’t want to wait” to be issued with the Government’s new Identity Cards. The Government has suggested that there is a demand for Identity Cards, and that they will prove to be popular amongst the British people.

However, a series of Parliamentary Questions tabled by the Rt. Hon John Redwood MP has revealed that of the 3,073 items of correspondence regarding Identity Cards and the National Identity Database received by the Identity and Passport Service between November 2006 and October 2008, just 1,142 were recorded under the theme of “Wants an Identity Card”, or just over a third.

It is likely the true scale of people’s opposition is even higher than that claimed by the Government. In their answer to John Redwood’s Parliamentary Question, the Home Office only included correspondence sent to the Identity and Passport Service, and not letters sent directly to the Home Secretary or her officials. It may also be that letters recorded under the subject of “Wants an Identity Card” will include enquiries from people who believe they are required to obtain a card now, or those making enquiries about how they can obtain one in the future to comply with new requirements to be placed on foreign students and spouses from outside the EU. These should not necessary be taken as indications of support for the Government’s policy.

John Redwood says: “It is astonishing that, even after putting the best possible spin on the numbers and neglecting to fully provide the information requested, the only figure the Government can come up with is a third of people wishing to receive an Identity Card. This makes it much more difficult to believe the Home Secretary’s claim that there is a demand for Identity Cards from the British public.”

“In fact, public opinion is likely to be much more strongly against Identity Cards than the Minister’s figures suggest. People who are opposed to this measure are not likely to have written to the Identity and Passport Service but to the Minister or her officials directly at the Home Office. It is telling that the Minister has neglected to tell us how many members of the public have written to her directly to express their opposition to this unnecessary and expensive gimmick. The Minister claims this information is not recorded. I suspect that, had there been deluge of correspondence supporting the Government’s plans, she would have been only too happy to tell us about it.”

“Poll after poll has shown that the British people do not want Identity Cards. We do not need Identity Cards, and we certainly do not need the Government’s draconian National Identity Database. They will be costly and ineffective, and will do nothing to protect our civil liberties, defend against terrorism or help clamp down on illegal immigration.”

Which forecast do you believe?

In recent days governments around the world have come up with proposals for large reflationary packages of extra spending and lower taxes. At the same time we have heard about an additional potential $800 billion of support for the US banking sector, as the Paulson plan morphs for the fourth time. Governments are making it quite clear they will use every weapon in their armoury to try to lift the recession. We should expect more interest rate cuts, more financial support for banks and more adjustments of general economic policy.

The actions being taken are large and extreme. Markets remain very volatile, but still gripped by more fear than greed. Pessimists point to the continuing sales of shares from redemptions of hedge funds and other collective investment vehicles. They rightly warn us of more losses, dividend cuts and bankruptcies ahead. Commodity prices are well and truly punctured, and the private sector is generally slashing capital spending, seeking to conserve what cash they have. The western banks are still reluctant to lend.

There are limited reasons for some optimism. It now seems clear no more major banks will be allowed to go bust. Markets usually start to rise well before the bad news of the recession is over, discounting a year or so ahead of any upturn. Inflation is falling rapidly as predicted, interest rates will come down more, whilst the Asian economies will carry on growing regardless.

There are at least three possible scenarios from here.

The first is the official view of the UK and US authorities. They state that the recession will be short and relatively shallow. They assume the banks will soon start lending again, thanks to the extra capital and lower interest rates, the injections of liquidity and the supply of money. They expect inflation to undershoot, and then for the main economies to emerge with growth within their natural capacities.

The second is the pessimistic view that because the banking problems are not yet resolved, the recession is going to be much longer and deeper than the authorities claim. It is worrying that so far none of the conventional weapons of lower rates, more capital, more liquidity and government support have worked. The UK banking sector is still withdrawing facilities and putting up the price of credit. Partly this is because the regulators have demanded higher capital ratios, forcing banks to rein in their lending. Partly it is because bankers are now themselves frightened by the outlook and being understandably cautious about prospects for businesses and individuals. We could go into an era like Japan post 1990 where banking weakness negates many of the reflationary benefits of higher public spending, low interest rates and extra liquidity.

The third scenario is that at some point all the reflationary medicine will start to work, in a way which could trigger a new inflation. There are always lags between changing interest rates and an economy responding. The UK and US authorities were around a year late in cutting rates, as wI warned at the time. It will take several more months before you would expect much response. Because both US and UK banks were so weak, it takes time for those banks to repair their balance sheets and regain confidence to lend, but on this analysis it will happen in due course. If the banks did start to work properly again, there are huge amounts of liquidity out there which could start to pump through the system. Meanwhile Indian and Chinese demand for commodities of all kinds will continue to rise, exerting upward pressure on raw material prices. Both the UK and US authorities, so heavily encumbered by new debt, will have an interest in inflating their way out of some of it.

It is difficult to be sure which of these latter two will happen. The government scenario is the least likely of the three. What we can say with some certainty is the UK is running too much risk, and the authorities are making too many mistakes to be sure of a happy outcome. Their decision to demand more banking capital long after the problem had changed to shortage of lending from over lending, the delays in interest rates cuts, the massive overborrowing by the public sector and the poor decision to cut VAT instead of boosting people’s incomes all point in the direction of a worse outcome than the government forecasts, by a large margin. We could end up both with a deeper recession, and the makings of an inflation once we come out.

Some more arrests for our government controlled state?

If the government now wishes to get tough on leakers, there is plenty for it to do. It might also help to start targetting the people with access to privileged information about important issues who leaked it in the first place.

The government should open enquiries into two very important sets of leaks that moved markets and made it more difficult to handle the Credit crisis. These were much more serious than a few immigration figures. It also happens to be an offence to pass on price sensitive inside information, and to divulge it before it has been properly declared to the Stock Exchange.

The first are the leaks to Robert Peston concerning the private talks between the banks, the government and the regulators over the adequacy of their capital, when the authorities perversely decided to increase their capital requirements in the midst of a serious lack of confidence. These leaks pushed down bank share prices, and made it much more difficult for banks to raise extra capital from the markets at a time when the government was threatening nationalisation if they didn’t immediately raise more money.

The second were the copious leaks of the budget proposals before the misnamed Pre Budget report this week. Chancellors used to have to resign if any tax proposal from a budget got out before it was announced in the Commons. How times have changed with this regime of the spinners.

The trouble is I don’t expect any strong aciton on these matters any time soon. It just goes to show how this government has no sense of justice and fairness. It wants to blame an Opposition spokesman rather than investigating where the leaks came from within its own organsiation and taking approrpriate internal disciplinary action.

What of course the government will discover is that in a democracy it is not unreasonable for information other than secrets important to our security to become part of the public debate. They may also discover that some of the most active leakers are Ministers themselves, who seem unable to keep to the rule that they should announce things first to the Commons. It is quite wrong to use anti terrorism legislation for any of this.

Why bullying banks is not the answer (Daily Telegraph article from today)

I am close enough to the public mood to know bank mangers are far from popular. I understand enough economics to know bank managers by the decisions they have to make in the weeks ahead are going to make themselves even more unpopular.

Someone, however, does have to tell this government that bullying the banks, threatening them with legal actions and more nationalisation, is the not the way to work us out of this banking crisis. Indeed, this government needs to understand that it is in the glasshouse with the bankers, so throwing boulders at them is an especially dangerous pastime. Like it or not, the future of this Labour government is now heavily hitched to what the bankers do next. So far no amount of hectoring, and no amount of money promised in one form or another, has been enough to unblock the banking credit arteries.

Instead of grandstanding and getting cross, the government needs to ask itself why? What went wrong over the last decade, and how can they now fix it? For be in no doubt, this is not just a story of greedy senior bankers who overdid the lending in the good times. This is also a story of monetary policy lurching from boom to bust, interest rates kept too low for too long and then kept too high for too long, banking capital rules which were too lax, now supplanted by rules made much tougher at the very point where banks are finding it difficult to lend anyway! We have lurched from boom to bust in every aspect of banking and monetary control.

We all want the banks to work better, and for some more credit to flow in the private sector again. That means revisiting the huge £487 billion pound package of guarantees, loans and share capital the government announced in early October. Too little of the loans and guarantees have been used, whilst the taxpayer is about to be put on massive risk at share prices well above current market valuations.

The main parts of the package, the short term loans and guarantees, were a good idea. They have not been employed enough, implying there is something wrong with the pricing and the terms. The government should discuss with banks what they do need, and renegotiate the package in a way sensible to both sides.

At the same time the government needs to revisit the issue of banking capital. They wanted far too little in shareholder funds in the good times. Northern Rock Directors were famously discussing how they get down to the low levels required by the new regulations just a few weeks before the run on their bank!

Now they are arguably wanting too much too soon. Of course over time they need to get the banks to increase their reserves. There are many ways to do that by cost cutting and more revenue. This can be supplemented by some choice from of asset and business sales, lower dividend payments, seeking more private capital and cancelling the annual bonus for a year or two. The regulator should have short and longer term targets for more capital for all the banks, agreed with them in private. Where a bank is currently on low capital the regulator should take a close and running interest in progress in rebuilding it. In the meantime it should be reaffirmed that the Bank of England, as the banks’ banker stands behind all the leading banks, and will make whatever money available to them they need in the form of short term loans against proper security

This government has both demanded that banks have much more capital relative to their lending than they needed to have a year ago, and demanded that they lend more! The two are contradictory positions. The easiest way for the banks to hit the new more prudent capital targets is to lend less and charge more.

The taxpayer capital is both too much for comfort for the taxpayer to afford, and too little to solve the banking crisis. The banks could lose further large sums with another round of write offs from their loan books as more companies and people find it difficult to repay. The government should do more due diligence on how good the different loan books are before buying. The banks the government is buying shares in have a balance sheets of more than £3 trillion. If things went wrong and they lost another 1% of their assets overall, that would lose us most of the defence budget. Once nationalised, the bill is sent to the taxpayers.

So government. please stop playing politics with the banks, and start trying to manage the monetary and banking system properly. It has always been a government task to ensure stability of the system and to control the overall amount of lending. You have lurched from too loose to too tight. You are now asking the impossible of the banks, so try again. It is better to talk than to row. We need both banks and government to function properly., At the moment neither are.