THE LAST DITCH

A message from the 1970s on state spending – Telegraph.

The 1970s were when my political views were formed. In that decade, I was suspended from my bog-standard comprehensive for my revolutionary activities. I was a member of a Maoist school students union, which organised the only pupils strike in the history of British education. I sold "Quotations from Chairman Mao" and "The Little Red Schoolbook" to my fellow pupils. I refused to be a prefect or to apply to Oxbridge (alas) because I was anti-elitist.

I had a Damascene political conversion as a result of seeing men on a building site where I worked in my school holidays subjected to violent intimidation by the Shrewsbury Pickets. I had already read my Marx but that led me to my Hayek and Popper. I went on to lead my university's Conservatives to take control of its Student Union from the Left for the first time and was one of the first people to call myself a "Thatcherite". I met and discussed politics with Sir Keith Joseph and discovered I was a good judge of character when I also met the pompous, wet and unreliable Sir Geoffrey Howe. I didn't like him the instant I set eyes on him and was not surprised when he later played Brutus to Margaret's Caesar.

But the truly formative event was the national humiliation wrought on Britain by Labour bankrupting the British state and calling in the IMF. I don't think anyone who was there and understood what what happening could ever forget it. It has informed my every political and economic thought since. It's why I am so scared by the nonsense flickering across the synapses of commenter and erstwhile guest blogger Mark (and virtually everyone else in Britain, alas).

Every new Labour leader should stand before his first party conference and recite Jim Callaghan's words, because they nail the greatest lie in modern politics and economics; that the state can drive growth. It cannot. At the most it can facilitate it, by providing the rule of law and consistent, predictable regulation that businesses can plan for, but otherwise getting the hell out of our way. This is what he said.

We used to think you could spend your way out of recession and increase employment by boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists. And in so far as it ever did exist, it only worked on each occasion … by injecting a bigger dose of inflation into the economy, followed by a higher level of unemployment as the next step.

I agree with , author of the linked article in The Telegraph, that these are among the most important (and I would add almost certainly the most honest) words uttered by any British Prime Minister. That they have been forgotten so quickly horrifies me. If all my efforts in writing this blog achieve nothing else, I hope I can bring people to Mr Callaghan's honest, if no doubt disappointing for a lifelong Socialist, realisation.

19 responses to “A message from the 1970s”

  1. Antisthenes Avatar
    Antisthenes

    “We used to think you could spend your way out of recession and increase employment by boosting government spending.”
    And this time around not just spending but printing and borrowing on an enormous scale. How much inflation and unemployment is that going to eventually cause? Having turned the taps on of loose money and low interest rates nobody now dare turn them off again. Well the future looks bleak so bleak that the 30’s depression may well look quite moderate in comparison.

    Like

  2. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    I certainly wasn’t around at the time so excuse me, but what did the British Government borrow? Did they borrow dollars in order to buy sterling and defend the exchange rate? That wouldn’t be a issue these days due to free-floating currency.
    Did they borrow pounds for domestic spending? If so, I can’t fathom why. Where would the IMF be getting pounds anyway ? Almost certainly from contributions made by the British government.

    Like

  3. Tom Avatar

    It’s long enough ago for the Top Secret papers of the time to be available for you to read. They are to be found here.
    http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/themes/imf-crisis.htm#The%20$3.9%20billion%20loan
    The government’s credit having run out, it borrowed $3.9 billion from the IMF. Then it lost the next election, leaving Mrs Thatcher to take the opprobrium for the cuts necessary to put the state finances back on track. The Labour opposition then jeered irresponsibly from the sidelines, backing the unions in their fight against the inevitable.
    Of course Thatcher went to it with a will and backed the state off sufficiently to permit real economic growth – the proceeds of which were squandered (and of course borrowed against) by Blair/Brown in the political equivalent of economics’ “hog cycle.”
    And throughout, the great British public paid no attention, learned nothing and continued to believe that “jobs” and “growth” and “social security” were in the gift of politicians who could just print more money any time they pleased.

    Like

  4. Moggsy Avatar
    Moggsy

    Like with “No more boom and bust” – yeah right, absolutely.
    I think you are right Tom.
    If history teaches anything is there will always be another bubble. The most dangerous time is when people start seeing it as some sort of perpetual motion machine. I guess the trick is not to be in it when it bursts and not to get sucked under when it does.
    It all seems so wonderfully technical and complicated where only really really clever economists and bankers and such can understand it all, but that is bs. If you can balance a household budget you can understand this stuff. For me it helps thinking in terms of a household budget.

    Like

  5. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    Oh my goodness. That is it.
    That is it.
    Do you agree that it is helpful to think of the national economy in terms of a household budget, Tom?

    Like

  6. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    Tom,
    “If they failed to reach an agreement with the imf, the government faced the risk of the exchange rate falling out of control…”
    (IMF negotiations 23rd November 1976)
    The government were attempting to protect the exchange rate. Have a look at the long term exchange rate
    http://www.miketodd.net/encyc/dollhist-graph2.htm
    Between 1975 and 76 there was a 30 percent drop in the exchange rate, which was then reversed. Under Thatcher, between 1980 and 1985 there was a 50 percent drop and again recently a 25 percent drop.
    Perhaps what Thatcher did right was stop worrying overmuch about the exchange rate, because it was this concern – the concern that a decline in the pound would have disastorous economic consequences which led to the government raking a loan – not the domestic budget itself. 
    Does a decline in the pound have terrible consequences? I’m not sure many people have noticed the recent decline in the exchange rate ( though I certainly have). It doesn’t seem to affect peoplevthat much. 
    If a decline was a terrible thing, then wouldn’t the Thatcher years have been the worst? If it isn’t shouldn’t you stop worrying about the IMF?

    Like

  7. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    But surely, the economy as a whole can’t really save? What could it mean?

    Like

  8. Tom Avatar

    They weren’t afraid of the kind of exchange rate movements you describe; they were afraid of a Weimar Republic-style, money-in-wheelbarrows situation.
    Inflation was already running high at that point. It had turned my father’s mortgage into a joke (lucky him) but it had also reduced the formerly well-off retired neighbours in the other half of the semi I lived in at the time to genteel poverty; their life savings also a joke.
    You quoted the first relevant sentence in the first of the documents I pointed out to you. How about this one a little further on – Healey’s words to the Cabinet in advising that the negotiations with the IMF continue?
    “…the Government would be unable to finance either the internal or external deficit over the next year without the loan…”
    They had taken us to the economic brink. Our leaders continue to do this at intervals. I no longer believe that it’s because they are stupid and/or wicked. I think it’s because most voters are so stupid and/or wicked that politicians can only get elected by pandering to their economic idiocy.

    Like

  9. Tom Avatar

    Firstly, the government does not equal the economy, even in a totalitarian socialist state. Secondly, the national economy is neither a closed system, nor a pie of fixed size. Thirdly, the state’s income and outgoings can and should be balanced over time. Any borrowing against future income should only be for the purposes of capital investment that will continue to add value after the loan has been repaid. One should never borrow to meet current expenditure, leaving debt to be serviced in future without having generated assets to produce net income to service it.

    Like

  10. MickC Avatar
    MickC

    Is it really the case that voters are “economic idiots”? I don’t think that is correct. Most (all, in fact?), voters pay tax. For that they expect something in return. That something consists of defence, a justice system, (these are essentials), a social security system, a medical system, an education system etc.
    Most voters are perfectly well aware that the country cannot afford all of these-but their money has been taken and any sensible person will therefore get as much as possible for what they have paid. That does not strike me as idiocy (except believing it in the first place-1945? -or later?)but perfectly rational behaviour.
    There was remarkably little fuss about the extension of the pension ages-which I would suggest is evidence that “we the people” understand the problem perfectly well. There may well be “the madness of crowds”-I would suggest there is also the common sense of the masses.
    But there again I may just be an irrational optimist.

    Like

  11. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    Tom –
    perhaps government cuts/tax rises were needed to prevent inflation, but what does a loan from the IMF have to do with that? I can’t understand the mechanism by which the government needs to borrow dollars in order to spend domestically or reduce inflation (except to the extent that preventing a decline in the pound would prevent inflation)
    I’m not sure if people are economic idiots, but when I talk about this kind of thing, the vast majority have views very similar to yours Tom…

    Like

  12. Moggsy Avatar
    Moggsy

    Mark, I am impressed with your “subtle” put down. I could have expected no less of you.
    Not only is it a logical fallacy it has a hint of sexism and mysogeny as well, congratulations!
    Why not go for gold I say.

    Like

  13. james higham Avatar

    I had a Damascene political conversion
    Many of the better political bloggers have done, Tom. 😉

    Like

  14. Tom Avatar

    They believe in something for nothing, so I don’t think “economic idiots” is unduly harsh. I hope your optimism is justified though.

    Like

  15. Andrew Duffin Avatar
    Andrew Duffin

    It’s depressing that after Callaghan’s wisdom, and Maggie’s years of trying to knock sense into everyone’s heads, we yet again hear siren voices calling on the State to borrow more, spend more, run up more debt, in the misguided belief that this will somehow help.
    Since when did MORE debt help anybody? Isn’t too much debt one of the root causes of the current trouble?
    I wouldn’t expect them to know their Bastiat, but do they really still think that “government money” grows on trees?
    Must every generation learn this over again, with resultant sufferings?
    “The Gods of the copybook headings limp up to explain it again”.

    Like

  16. Moggsy Avatar
    Moggsy

    ^_^ How many to the $?

    Like

  17. Moggsy Avatar
    Moggsy

    What is it they say?
    “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it”, or, “Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.”
    Education is societie’s memory.

    Like

  18. Andrew Duffin Avatar
    Andrew Duffin

    Indeed.
    But education – at least, mass education – has been emasculated (literally), and turned into the propagation by the ignorant of whatever are the current fashionable nostrums of the liberal elite.
    Is there any hope?
    Must remember that despair is a sin.

    Like

Leave a reply to Tom Cancel reply

Tom is a retired international lawyer. He was a partner in a City of London law firm and spent almost twenty years abroad serving clients from all over the world.

Returning to London on retirement in 2011, he was dismayed to discover how much liberty had been lost in the UK while he was away.

He’s a classical liberal (libertarian, if you must) who, like his illustrious namesake, considers that

“…government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.”

Latest comments
  1. Lord T's avatar
  2. tom.paine's avatar
  3. Lord T's avatar
  4. tom.paine's avatar
  5. Lord T's avatar