George Osborne: Labour is in denial over its role in this financial crisis
A desperate lurch to the left is not a sensible way to tackle this problem
Tuesday, 23 September 2008
The Labour Party seems to have developed a collective amnesia about its responsibility for the current financial crisis. Listen to delegates on the Conference floor and Ministers in fringe meetings, and the loudest cheers go to those who play to the crowd by attacking the way the City is regulated. They seem to forget that it was their Prime Minister who created that system 10 years ago.
But the real prize for memory loss must go to Ed Balls. On Monday he said that those who had advocated "light touch regulation" had been, in his words, "routed". This is the same Ed Balls who as Chief Economic Adviser to the Treasury for eight years boasted about the "light touch" regime of City regulation he had designed. This is also the same Ed Balls who then as City Minister called for "a light touch approach at the global and EU level". The star player of Labour's football team has scored a spectacular own-goal.
This desperate lurch to the left may be red meat to the activists, but it is not a sensible way to address the very real problems we face with our system of regulation and the financial crisis now before us. We need to take a cool, calm look at what has gone wrong and work out how to solve it.
The symptoms are clear and were played out on the dealing floors of the City, and the TV screens of every family, last week. Speculative raids on sound companies. Markets either in a state of paralysis or unprecedented volatility. Runs on banking stocks and the near failure of Britain's largest mortgage lenders.
There has been a whiff of Schadenfreude about the fate of spectacularly well paid Lehman bankers, but spare a thought for the thousands of hard-working people who go to work in their local HBOS branch or call centre, who aren't paid huge sums and now fear for their job.
Like any sickness, we need to treat these symptoms that have caused such misery. I believe we should act swiftly to reassure depositors that their savings are safe, which is why I have offered Alistair Darling bi-partisan support for raising the level of deposit protection to £50,000 and ensuring it can be swiftly paid out. The current system of protection did not command confidence over Northern Rock, but still remains in place over a year after we saw queues on our high street.
The tripartite system of regulation created by Gordon Brown clearly needs to be overhauled. I think we need to give the Bank of England much greater powers to watch over the markets and seize control of financial institutions that are about to fail. Both at home, and internationally, we should look at new counter-cyclical capital adequacy rules.
In other words, we should require banks to put aside more capital in good years so they are better prepared when the cycle turns down. I also think we need, as the Chairman of HSBC said recently, the regulators to look at the structure of City bonuses to make sure they aren't encouraging irresponsible risk-taking.
The idea that the Conservative Party is afraid or unwilling to tackle these issues because of "our friends in the City" is ludicrous. Remember which party was prepared to stand up and say that the non-domiciles in the City needed to pay a fairer share in tax. Not New Labour, too bedazzled by big money to do anything in the 10 years they sat in the Treasury; it was David Cameron and the modern Conservative Party.
Protecting depositors and fixing the broken regulatory system are important steps we need to take to try to restore stability to the financial markets. However, in end these are symptoms of a much bigger problem that has much deeper root causes. For a decade Britain allowed an economy to be built on debt at every level: personal debt, corporate debt, banking debt and government debt.
When you hear Gordon Brown say that we are better prepared than other countries to face the current problems consider these three facts. First, our average household debt is higher than any other country in the G7. Second, our house prices went up faster than house prices in America. Third, we enter this downturn with the highest budget deficit in the developed world and higher net debt than when Labour came to office. Gordon Brown simply refuses to even recognise the debt problem exists.
Until we face up to need to wean our economy, our banking system and our government off unsustainable levels of debt, then we will not solve the root cause of the instability our economy is now exposed to.
The writer is the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited

Comments
17 Comments
Milton Friedman et al believed that the benign hand of the market will sort everything out if only it remains unfettered by nasty wicked things like governments or the EU?
Not quite accurate. Milton Friedman wanted government spending to be a massive 15-20 per cent of GDP (instead of Labours wealth-stultifying 50 per cent). Thanks to the wealth generated by capitalism, spending at this level today would be many times greater than anything envisioned by Marx or any other socialist prior to the 1960s except in moments of idle fancy. But the wealth enjoyed by even the poor in Britain today is no fancy. It consists of real TV sets, washing machines, central heating etc. The only way socialists can square this circle is by denying that things are better than they were 50 years ago. But even you dont hate Thatcher enough to be that stupid. Do you??
Posted by blingmun | 24.09.08, 10:29 GMT
Why doesn't the government set up their own credit card company. Then everyone get's credit, whether they are sub-prime or not. Here's the kicker ... payback comes straight out of your benefits in the future. This includes companies as well. Let's start thinking about some REAL SOLUTIONS!
Posted by paolo | 24.09.08, 00:17 GMT
Um...help me out here George. Which party is it that spent the 80s and early 90s in thrall to Milton Friedman et al, who believed - and, I'm sure believes still - that the benign hand of the market will sort everything out if only it remains unfettered by nasty wicked things like governments or the EU?
Which party decided that the windfall from North Sea oil was better spent on paying unemployment benefit to those it had thrown out of work rather than creating a sovereign wealth fund and investing in the UK as Norway has done?
George, your article is merely spin from a party desperate not to be identified with the greedy and oh so clever bankers who gave us the sub-prime disaster. OK, so Gordon Brown and BluLabour presided over an unsustainable explosion in debt for years. When exactly did the Conservatives start warning about unsustainable levels of debt in the banking sector?
Posted by Kolya | 23.09.08, 17:59 GMT
What a great choice of posting name "flipped" Most appropriate. Yes it Thatchers fault all of this. Goodness she only left office nearly TWE DECADES ago and Labour have only had a mere 11YEARS to change things. What a fantastic insight you have. What does it feel like to be interchangeable with Brown? Embarrassing I shopuld hope. Get in the real worls and stop carping aboput before our children were born. Excuses to cover lack of economic ideas. Brown squandered our wealth and saved nothing. He'll fix our economy, our borders. Who will be supplying the compuets a la Drayson? Must be a nice little earner in it for another donor.
Posted by sanity | 23.09.08, 15:55 GMT
Who needs yuppies to tell labour how to run the economy your type was the type that caused the problmes.
Posted by Dirty Euro | 23.09.08, 15:46 GMT
Yea gods, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Do you really think that our memories are so short that we have forgot the "Free Market" and "There is No such thing as society" government of Margaret Thatcher.
I doubt if anyone could now squeeze a piece of rice paper between the policies, greed, corruption and mismanagement of the two main parties in the UK.
Posted by flipped | 23.09.08, 15:24 GMT
There needs to be more connection between the work people do and the money they have. No one should work fulltime and still have to rely on credits and benefits to survive. It is humiliating, immoral and just a government subsidy to low paying employers.
Similarly, no more smoke and mirrors tricks, allowing big business to go unchallenged while the government 'compensates' certain sections of society with free insulation or free internet. The likes of fuel and telecommunication companies need to be held to account and made to do what is right for society.
People who have been stupid and irresponsible should face the consequences and instead be told/encouraged to 'educate' themselves on the subject of debt and history.
There must be no propping up of house prices.
Posted by Robert | 23.09.08, 14:10 GMT
People in glasshouses should not throw stones ( or in this case carpet bomb with daisy cutters ) Even if you are right.
Posted by RSBridgman | 23.09.08, 13:22 GMT
"the biggest benefit that pension funds used to have - on dividend income was one of GB's first not so stealthy taxes."
The biggest benefit pension funds have is that they dont pay Capital Gains Tax. This gives them a massive advantage over the individual investor who can only get relief on a relatively small return (small relative to the sums required for a pension).
It is no coincidence that the other volatile boom market has been in housing, and that again this is one way of saving for the future without paying Gordon for the privilege (you don't pay CGT when you sell your home).
But doubtless the likes of the Guardian (and several voices in this newspaper) will persist in hating Thatcher and loving tax & spend. And so the market distortions will go on. New Labour and "Modern Tory" alike will agree that the current problems are about a lack of regulation and an absence of the dead hand of government. The virus of socialism will continue to impoverish everyone.
Posted by blingmun | 23.09.08, 12:41 GMT
"The Chancellor thus finds himself with three choices. He can raise taxes, cut public spending, or increase public borrowing."
The Indy's leader writer sumes up the three policy heads, and opts for more borrowing.
George Osborne hints that he favours the second option, but he is disguising the fact.
He recently told the Centre for Policy Studies:
"The crucial insight for modern Conservatives is that in the new global economy you cannot have economic success without social success. Reducing educational failure, tackling worklessness and poverty, mending our broken society - these are all progressive social goals that we have rightly put at the very centre of our agenda."
Which sounds like T Blair, circa 1997.
The real worry must be that we are at a 'pre-Shock Doctrine' moment, and that the upcoming Tory government will put cuts and privatisations at the top of it agenda.
Posted by Tom MacFarlane | 23.09.08, 12:37 GMT
17 Comments