The Observer might have got the wrong end of the stick

Tomorrow’s Observer front page claims that “Rightwing thinktanks call time on austerity era”. The piece says that the Adam Smith Institute, among others, have “endorsed public spending increases to confront the coronavirus outbreak and state-funded investment to boost the recovery”.

On the former point, this is totally unremarkable. There is a role for temporary state spending during the emergency stages of a pandemic. We have repeatedly said that the furlough scheme and business loans are sensible policies to maintain as much productive capacity as possible while swathes of the economy are closed. In a call with the Observer I explained that all this spending is possible today because of the responsible reduction in public deficit spending over the last decade. For some reason this did not make it into the article. 

On the latter point about infrastructure spending, this is an absurd misrepresentation of my position and at no point does the story quote me supporting infrastructure spending. In fact, I made the point to the journalist in question that state-spending tends to be directed towards politically favoured projects rather than what is economically beneficial. That’s why my colleague, Matt Kilcoyne, repeated our opposition to the wasteful white elephant HS2 project in April. 

The article also quotes me backing the Bank of England’s loose monetary policy and “temporary and short-term” support for Government borrowing. This is sensible during the crisis. But, as I made clear to the Observer, the Government extending their overdraft with the Bank of England, which they intend to repay by the end of the year, is not a long term solution. The Bank cannot, and knows it cannot, fund state spending indefinitely. It would be extremely inflationary if continued. There is still no magic money tree.

This has been an extremely busy time for the ASI. We have been mentioned in the media thousands of times, released four major and timely reports, and written dozens of opinion pieces.  We have pointed out the colossal extent of state failure during this crisis, especially when it comes to Public Health England’s catastrophic approach to testing, the excessive focus on ‘protecting the NHS’, and how centralised PPE procurement has been problematic.

We have also been fervent advocates for a plan to reopen the economy when it is safe to do so (even reported in The Guardian). We have also released polling that found three-quarters of respondents (72%) think that the Government should reduce taxes after the lockdown to try to increase economic growth and jobs. We have also been part of debates about privacy and contact tracing, freedom of speech, and much much more.

Over the coming weeks and months we will have a huge challenge on our hands to reboot the economy. The ASI have been and always will be emphatic supporters of entrepreneurialism, reducing taxes and regulatory barriers to businesses large and small. The Observer buries the lead in the final sentence of their article:

The four thinktanks continue to believe the Treasury should examine tax-cutting measures to promote innovation and entrepreneurial activity, saying that over the longer term, Whitehall was poor at allocating funds to the economy in the most effective way.

We will have much more to say on this topic in the coming week. Don't you worry, we'll be setting the record straight.