Last week (December 8, 2015), the British Office of National Statistics released its updated – Family Spending, 2015 edition – which provides a detailed breakdown of household spending for 2014. What is interesting about the release from my perspective, in addition to seeing how household spending changes in composition over time, is what it says about distributional forces in the UK and the way in which households are losing out to corporate interests under the policy directions of neo-liberal British Labour and Conservative governments. In real terms, household spending overall is a lower in 2014 than what it was at the turn-of-the-century. British households are also saving less as a percent of their disposable income than they were 10 years ago. The weight share in national income has fallen dramatically over that time. Yet, real GDP growth (that is, real national income) has risen by around 27 per cent since the turn-of-the-century. It doesn’t take a genius to work out where that real income that it the workers have lost has gone. There are several components to this story and this blog looks at some of them.

When Jeremy Corbyn first came into prominence to take over the leadership of the British Labour Party, his offsider, now Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell started talking about “deficit deniers” and he and the Labour Party were avowedly not so inclined, as if questioning the fiscal surplus obsession was a demonstration of stupidity. In fact, for a political group claiming to be the ‘end of austerity’, who aimed to seize control of the Party from the neo-liberal Blairites – those austerity-lite mavens – I thought he was sounded distinctly neo-liberal himself. His defenders who also understood perhaps a bit of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) wrote to me and said we should be patient – that this was just a political ploy designed to snare the Conservatives in their own hubris. After all, George Osborne has categorically failed to achieve his goals of fiscal cutbacks. I noted that it was actually good that he had ‘failed’ because the U-turn Osborne made in 2012, albeit rather subtle, saved the British economy from a triple-dip recession and has allowed it to continue to grow. Britain is not an example of a successful austerity implementation. It looks rather Keynesian to me. John McDonnell decided he had better make a U-turn of his own in the last few days. This one won’t save the nation and will probably sink British Labour further into the mire. Why McDonnell supported Osborne’s crazy ‘Charter of Budget Responsibility’ two weeks ago is one question. It showed a monumental lack of understanding of what it would mean for the nation to lock the government in, legally, to achieving overall fiscal surpluses. The U-turn now betrays a capricious approach to policy and one that will fail to cut through and offer a truly progressive path. Very sad really.

In Part 1 of this two-part blog I laid out a general analytical framework for considering fiscal rules that might allow governments to borrow for infrastructure as long as all current expenditure is at least matched by taxation and other current receipts. This is more or less the rule that the British ‘Charter of Budget Responsibility’ imposes and the approach that the new (previously called radical left) British Labour Party leadership aspires to obey. I use previously called ‘radical left’ advisedly because as the days pass the utterances of the economic leadership make it difficult to differentiate between Labour and the Tories. The main difference appears to be the worn out “we will tax the rich and the crafty tax dodgers to balance the budget”. A nonsensical stance for a progressive political force and verges on Game Over syndrome. John McDonnell’s presentation to the National Labour Conference yesterday was a further walk into obscurity. By claiming they are not “deficit deniers” and will close the deficit as a priority they have walked right through the Tory framing door. Not lingered on the doorstep and then sought more salubrious premises. But they are right inside – trapped into the same mantra – yes, they will cut the deficit but it will be a fairer cutting. The rich will pay. And pigs might fly.