Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Michael Gove: Coyote ugly: G20 finally pushes Prudence into the abyss

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 29 March 2009
The racking up of all this debt is a consequence of Brown's own folly
YOU could call it the coyote moment. After the cartoon character from all our childhoods. Wile E Coyote was the animated predator who was always on the trail of the road runner (beep, beep!) yet never succeeded in catching him. Instead, what usually
happened was that in the coyote's zeal to get his elusive prey he would propel himself over some cliff or ravine. And then we would all watch in a mix of horror and delight as he carried on running into thin air, before suddenly realising there was nothing there to support him. And then he would plummet down to earth with an almighty crash.

Which is what has just happened to Gordon Brown. This was the week he went careering over the cliff edge. This was the week he found there was nothing there to support him. This was the week when his desire to pin down an enemy resulted in his own fate being sealed.

The ravine into which Gordon has hurled himself, and the country, is the horrendously deep deficit he has run up while in charge of the nation's finances. This country is now on course for a national debt of £1 trillion. The cost of servicing that debt, never mind repaying it, means each child will be paying more in interest for Brown's borrowing than will ever be spent on their own education.

Which is why the Governor of the Bank of England had to step in this week in an effort to restore a measure of sanity to the nation's finances. Gordon, having run up levels of debt which are not just astronomical but galactically unprecedented, was actually determined to use the Budget on April 22 to borrow even more. Recognising that might have tipped the country into a situation of dangerous financial chaos, even more damaging than anything we have yet seen, the Governor issued a stern warning that another borrowing binge would not be tolerated. In effect, he cut up the Prime Minister's credit card in front of Parliament.

It was the sort of humiliation which most Prime Ministers would regard as a signal that the game was up. But not Gordon. He then proceeded to traipse around the world, to the European Parliament and the offices of the Wall Street Journal, telling others how to fix their economies. It's like Pete Doherty lecturing nuns on abstinence; the word hypocrisy doesn't even begin to do justice to the sheer brass neck required.

But after such chutzpah has come a reckoning. While Gordon was lecturing international audiences on the need for markets to have morals (you really couldn't make it up…), the markets themselves were telling Gordon where to get off. This was the week the Government finally found that it couldn't get enough people to lend it money any more. A sell-off of Government debt was under-subscribed, with people no longer prepared to take the risk of financing Gordon's existing overdraft. Then, to compound the humbling, Gordon was given a tongue-lashing by the Tory MEP Dan Hannan after he had addressed the European Parliament. Hannan's speech was superb and brilliantly anatomised all the PM's hypocrisies. But what was most significant about it was not the quality of the argument but the quantity of those who have responded to it.

Over one million people, and rising, have downloaded the YouTube clip of Hannan speaking, have shared it with friends and sent it to others. It's an unprecedented phenomenon in British or EU politics, ranking alongside the internet popularity of Barack Obama's campaign messages. And what it powerfully underlines is the deep, and wide, sense among the public that the PM has had it. People were delighted to find their exasperation with Gordon Brown so pithily expressed. A scunnered nation had found its anger given passionate, articulate, expression and wanted the message heard over, and over, again.

The tragedy of the PM's position is that the racking up of all this debt, and the humiliation visited on him as the Governor tells him he's bankrupt and the nation tells him they've foreclosed on him, is a consequence of his own, very personal, folly. It's not just that he was the Chancellor who spent and borrowed so recklessly, it's not just that he swept away all the rules and all the regulatory architecture which might have shielded us, it's not just that he took us into this recession with a debt level higher than any other country in the world apart from Hungary, Pakistan or Egypt. No, his real economic crime was that he did so much of this for political reasons.

Every election Gordon Brown has ever won has been built on drawing dividing lines between himself and his opponents. He has depicted himself on one side, prudently investing in public services while on the other side the enemy (and its as likely to be the SNP as the Tories) would put it all at risk with cuts.

In order to sharpen those dividing lines he has continually put spending up and up with scarcely a thought to making sure the money was actually spent on frontline services. All that was important was winning the electoral auction, buying voters' support with their own money. Well now this political Ponzi scheme has collapsed in terrible chaos.

At the next election Gordon will try it on again, contrasting his spending plans with others. But the truth is that every pound he is spending now is going straight on to our children's tax bills, plus interest. Our economy, like those doomed cartoon characters, has been disappearing into thin air. And the long run during which Gordon Brown attempted to defy financial gravity has come to its, terrible, painful, end.

Michael Gove is Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families.





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 28 March 2009 10:28 PM
  • Source: Scotland On Sunday
  • Location: Scotland
  • Related Topics: SOS News columnists
 
1

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 29/03/2009 08:16:15
Oh, come on, Michael..... all these attempts to differentiate your party from New Labour are understandable, but if the Tories had been in power, how different would things really have been?

For example, right up until about 18 months ago, the Tories supported "light-touch" regulation in the financial services industry, as a logical extension of the Thatcherite "laissez-faire" nostrum that "you can't buck the market". As a reader of the London Evening Standard, I don't recall Cameron making much noise about excessive City bonuses in, say, 2006, when the money-go-round was still turning. Indeed, most of the Tory concern was about Brown's "meddling" in the City.

A recent Private Eye cover summed it up nicely. Cameron is shown saying: "Some of my best friends aren't bankers" (implication: most are). For "Cameron", read "the Conservative Party".

Going back further, the Tories' temporary but disastrous infatuation with Friedmanite monetarism (quietly ditched c1985) not only created dole queues even longer than today's (so far) but caused suicidally high interest rates that decimated UK manufacturing industry (not just the "smokestack" industries), leaving the economy, by the mid-1980s, structurally imbalanced and over-dependent on financial services, property speculation and, er, not much else. The slow extinction of manufacturing was rationalised away as an inevitable sign of a "post-industrial society" and therefore nothing to worry about (meanwhile, Germany forged ahead to become the world's largest exporter of manufactured products).

If we're using cartoon characters as a base, all this Tory bluster, including Mr Gove's article, reminds me not so much of Wile E Coyote but Foghorn Leghorn, the loud-mouthed and over-confident Southern rooster with a penchant for practical jokes and "putting his foot in it".
2

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 29/03/2009 09:18:14
# 2 sm753 -

Not Salmond's finest speech, but on balance he does, as a former oil economist, have his feet more firmly on the ground than his Unionist opponents. And there is no doubt that he puts Scotland first, which can't always be said of Messrs Broon, Cameron and, er, Clegg.

What about my point that things wouldn't have been much different had the Tories been in charge? I am guessing, following your logic, that you agree.
3

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 29/03/2009 11:15:39
Watched Tory MEP Daniel Hannan's speech on YouTube. Don't know what the fuss is about. There was nothing that hasn't already been said, and certainly nothing to indicate that the Tories had absolutely nothing to say about City greed and "light-touch regulation" when the good times were rolling.

In fact, Daniel Hannan came across as a bit of a public school bully..... as if there aren't enough of those in our governing classes.
4

Yok Finney,

Ross-shire 29/03/2009 11:34:44
Tories didn't need the trials and trappings of power because Labour were doing the job for them: accelerating their policies until the financial conflagration got seriously out of control.

Joined at the hip, they broke up the Union by flogging all national assets to foreign conglomerates like our electricity and grid and alot lot more. From broke-up to stoney broke was a small step off the cliff.

From our POV, Scotland is central whereas outsiders see us on the periphery of Europe.

The big boys are playing global politics and G20 are the global losers. Brown and Cameron'll have have to go to the people to explain why their war machine has lost and why Brits must learn to enjoy Orwell's England
5

Itchy,

29/03/2009 22:58:34
#1 As usual, your post is Marxist and cretinous.
6

Itchy,

Lochgelly 29/03/2009 23:00:33
"Going back further, the Tories' temporary but disastrous infatuation with Friedmanite monetarism (quietly ditched c1985) not only created dole queues even longer than today's (so far) but caused suicidally high interest rates that decimated UK manufacturing industry (not just the "smokestack" industries), leaving the economy,"

Does that mean that years of tax-and-spend economics, industries either propped up by the state or owned by the state, and militant luddite unions did not contribute?

Nope, the industries that collapsed were in trouble anyway and were already dying for the reasons I mention above.
7

Bolivarian Scot,

BorisTown 30/03/2009 21:41:06
# 6 and # 7 Itchy, Lochgelly -

I accept that some of the "smokestack" industries, beset by trade union excesses, would have died out anyway.

However, Friedmanite interest-rate manipulation is, by definition, a blunt policy instrument therefore it beggars belief that high interest rates only targetted a few "smokestack" industries. For one thing, a "smokestack" enterprise may have a whole host of suppliers that are largely, but not entirely, dependent on them.

The truth is that monetarism cut the legs from under many, many viable "support" businesses almost overnight - not just the pits, steelworks etc - instead of allowing them the opportunity to find new markets, customers etc. Hence the UK slipped into a trade deficit on manufactured goods in 1982, which, despite the 1990s "recovery", we never reversed.

I once heard the word "ecosystem" used to describe the network of inter-related private businesses, many of them viable and profitable, that went under during the early 1980s recession caused by dogmatic monetarism.

I am not saying that big changes were unnecessary in the British economy; only that Thatcherism went too far. The Germans managed to phase out their coal and steel industries, and (later) to reassimilate East Germany, in a more managed fashion than Mrs T's shambolic mismanagement, without the same wasted lives, destroyed communities, lost skills etc.

Re: the failure of "light-touch regulation". I don't know what the Lochgelly local rag is saying about the credit crunch but let me assure you that even the normally rightwing London Evening Standard is now running commentary by its City staff in which they criticise the evident failure of purely market-based ideology, "laissez-faire" economics etc.

So you stick to your rigid belief in the fairyland of "free competition" and other fantasies if you want to; but the cognoscenti, who are closer to the actual practice of modern-day business, have a much more jaundiced and nuanced view

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.