Yesterday’s casual approach to the Italian debt markets by the Euro area does not breed confidence in the currency. It is true the European Central Bank intervened to buy some Italian bonds. It did not do so on a scale sufficient to get the yields down to acceptable levels.

Leaking rumours that France and Germany are now ready to slim the Eurozone down, and press ahead to fiscal union with a smaller group of countries will merely fuel the bears and help exacerbate the crisis. As one who has consistently preferred splitting up the Euro zone and doing it quickly as the best solution, I just wish they would get on with it. How many more jobs and busiesses do they wish to see destroyed first, before they bow to the inevitable? It is interesting to see the President of the Commission battling to hold the Euro and ever closer integration together under the EU, whilst France and Germany are musing about creating a new club for a few.

There has to be a plan on how to fight the battle of Italy, if they are serious about keeping their currency and getting it to work. Are they going to get the IMF to advance the large amounts of money Italy will need to pay for her running deficit and refinance her expiring debts? Are they hoping that Germany will relent, and allow the ECB to buy up so many Italian bonds, that the Italian state can still borrow at affordable rates? Are they about to announce major quantitative easing, overcoming all the German fears of inflation and unorthodox monetary actions? How are they going to prevent the bank market freezing up, on fears of more losses on sovereign bonds?

It is all very well for them to encourage changes of government, and hope that people more enthusiastic about complying with the Euro scheme will arrive in power in each problem country. They are still left with the difficulty that their plan may not work. Just cutting spending and trying to squeeze down deficits that way may not succeed. If the banks are broken and cannot increase their lending, and if the southern member states remain uncompetitive with no ability to devalue, the austerity medicine may not cure the patient.

IMF packages normally entail monetary medicine and devaluation as well as spending cuts. The Euro area is trying to do it without important parts of the cure. Why do they think it is going to work?

Meanwhile, new governments have to follow the old remedies. Their task of gaining and keeping consent for these policies is going to prove difficult.

Today the markets cut up rough on Italian debt. Ten year bonds now yield 7.4% and one year money is priced at 9%. Pundits have told us 7% is the danger level, the point at which borrowing becomes too dear for the Italian state.

We await news from the Euro leaders what they now plan. Does Germany overcome her resistance to the ECB lending to Italy and printing more money? Does Italy now have to petition the IMF for funds?

The markets are moving much more swiftly than the politicians. The problem is jobs, businesses and standards of living are all being chanced on the roulette wheel of the Euro. Is anyone in charge? What is their plan now?

               Left wing critics of  market economics talk about markets as if they were just a small overpaid bunch of bond and currency traders they do not like. Markets are places for us all.  The large financial and banking markets are used by almost everyone. Let him who has no hedge fund to back his pension or no financial product to power his charity throw the first stone.

              The Trade Union which criticises the market often has an investment fund invested in bonds and shares. The Trade Union official who condemns  a market oriented approach will often have an invested pension pot, a mortgage, a credit card and a range of other financial products. The vicar who dislikes global capitalism enjoys money from funds  managed by the Church Commissioners. Unlikely people can have pensions and savings tied up in hedge funds, managed futures and other portfolios using futures, options and geared financial instruments.

              The market serves poor and rich alike. One person’s money is as good as another’s: there is no discrimination. The divergences in choice and lifestyle come from differences in access to funds, not from differences of other treatment.

               A late friend of mine used to host guests from the USSR visiting London in the days of communism. The people allowed to visit were trusted communists. He would take them to Marks and Spencers on Baker Street. They would be bowled over by the range and quality of the products compared to Moscow stores of the time. They would ask if this great shop was reserved for party members or members of various elites. They would be suprised to be told M and S was for everyone.

                My friend would then take them to Harrods. He would say this is where many of the elite shop. They were even more impressed. They were surprised to learn that no regulation  stopped the  unemployed or the former criminal shopping at Harrods, just as nothing  stops the billionaire buying at M and S. The western retail market was much freer and more democratic than their soviet controlled shops.

                  The main argument against capitalism in western democracies is it can leave some people behind, with too little or no income. The great western democracies have moved to tackle this by offering financial help to those who might otherwise get left behind. Anyone with some money can use it to buy whatever they like whenever they like, as long as they can afford it or can  borrow to buy it. Countries that have tried to replace the market by state planning, allocating goods to individuals and families, have usually created lower living standards as well as greatly restricting personal freedoms.

                     The market place is the ultimate democracy. Individuals can express their preferences or offer their services whenever they like. Only in a state planned system do they have to combat rationing, quotas, and  form filling as well as facing  the threat of  criminal penalties if they abuse the system.

                   Democracy understands how outcast people can feel in a wealthy market economy if they have little or no money. That is why all mainstream political parties agree with some redistribution of income and wealth, and all agree with financial assistance to those who cannot provide for themselves. The political debate should not be about the superiority of the enterprise system, or about the desirability of taking care of those who cannot provide for themselves. The debate should be the narrower one of how generous should we be to those who need state support, and how should people qualify for it?

            There is now much discussion of the immorality of the market. The latest fashion is to say that financial deregulation, dated conveniently to 1986 to place it under Margaret Thatcher, caused people to suddenly become self centred, materialistic and greedy in a way which has wrecked our finances, markets and banking ever since.

            This is bad history and sloppy politics. There was  a continuous rise in the volume and detail of financial regulation in the period 1986- 2011. Most of this period in the UK saw the country governed by a left of centre government with a large majority. They had the power to reverse any trends and deregulations they did not like. They themselves completely changed the system of financial regulation in 1997, 14 years ago. They formalised more of the regulation, and put the banks under a large new body of law designed by  the FSA.

            The truth is the last decade saw an explosion of extra regulation by both the UK and the EU. It saw substantial regulation by the global banking regulators of Basle. Collectively they made a huge error of judgement, allowing too much bank credit to be sustained on too small a banking foundation. It was a case of bad regulation, not deregulation.

           Markets were never moral. They did not enjoy a golden age of good behaviour. There were always some  greedy people and companies in them.  Markets are neither all bad nor all good. Saints buy from sinners. The moral lend to the immoral. Nasty people make things for nice people. Christians trade with atheists.  Markets are the results of the choices and actions of millions of people and companies deciding what to buy and what to sell. A market does not have a collective view or a moral outlook.

            When a market is moving rapidly in one direction then it can be a useful fiction to say “the market is optimistic because…” or the “market does not believe in Greek state finances because…” Even in these more extreme conditions every transaction needs a buyer as well as a seller. Buyers and sellers by definition usually  have different views.The attribution of an attitude or opinion to a market is an attempt to explain price movements by trying to identify the motivation of the majority of traders.

              Markets are amoral. They are a babble of voices, a mixture of the well informed, the opinionated, the frightened and the optimistic, the lost and the wrong headed. They are important ways of allowing people to change their assets, raise cash, invest and make economic decisions. They are not places to come to a single moral conclusion.

            That is why markets need regulating. That is why politicians are elected to write laws to control them, or to impose a moral view on the actions of the many. It is generally agreed in a free society that we need laws against theft and damage to other people’s property. We need a law of contract, and some law to ensure honest dealing. We need laws to stop individuals and companies gaining too much power in ways which can distort a market or can prevent other people enjoying proper access to it.

            Markets allow the moral to flourish if they wish by using the market. Investors can invest in moral ways. Entrepreneurs and charities can raise money for good purposes from the market. Large companies in recent years have pioneereed better employment practises, better products and services, and the greening of their actions. Market pressures and market money allowed them to do these things.

              Governments have to decide how to prevent abuses and immoral purposes stalking the markets. They have done so through a myriad of regulations. Some of these work and are needed. Some have failed. Some have been badly implemented and missed the targets. We do not have unbridled greed because we have insufficient financial regulation. Markets are never going to abolish all greed. Regulators have to decide what to stop and how to stop them. If the left now thinks there is too much greed, we are entitled to ask why did they do so little to stem it between 1997 and 2011?

                         Today the EFSF did manage to borrow another 3bn euros. It had to pay 1.77% more than German bunds for ten year money. The trillion euro geared fund now probably has 6.5 bn euros to call on, but has to make payments to existing clients.  

                          Meanwhile we learned that the European Central Bank has bought 9.5 billion of  sovereign bonds in the last week, probably including Italian ones. Despite this Italian 10 year money rose to a new high for this century, and worried the governments about how Italy could raise the money it needs to borrow.

          Contemporary politics and much media commentary concentrates on getting the IMF/EU packages through and into effect for Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and to discussing the need for one in  Italy. There is rejoicing when governments change, coalitions form, or even better when there is a government of national unity to close down dissent and opposition.

          All have to sign up to the packages, and anyone who disagrees is said to be  unhelpful, endangering the whole edifice.

       The problem occurs if these policies do not work. Where then is the alternative team and the alternative policy to offer hope or to get it right?  IMF programmes have worked in the past when public spending reductions have gone alongside devaluations and monetary and interest rate manipulations. Getting IMF packages to work in Euroland is altogether more difficult, as they have no control over currency and interest rates, and may find deficits rise rather than fall as economies contract.

            There has been argument over the Chief Secretary’s use of a £40 billion figure for the UK’s contribution to the  IMF yesterday on TV. I have been back and checked the Hansard record of the Committee I attended to hear the government’s case for an increased subscription on July 5th 2011. The Minister said:

            “The subscription is drawn in the IMF’s unit of account and currently stands at 10.74 billion SDRs which is approximately £10.7 bn at today’s exchange rate. The Order will raise the subscription to 20.16 bn SDRs, equivalent to £20.15 billion.”  It appeared we were being asked to approve an extra £9.5 billion.

            Apparently the figure including borrowing will be double the new total in this speech. Had I been told  that at the time it would have made no difference to my action, as I voted against the increase anyway when it came up for vote in the Commons  on 11 July.  Others must say if it might have affected the way they voted, where they voted to approve the Order. I thought an extra £9.5 bn was too much given the UK’s current financial position, and the possible use of these funds for Euro area rescues that may not work as intended. Double that would  in my view be worse.

PS  The Prime Minister clarified the position this afternoon. Parliament did vote to approve a couple of Orders in 2009 and 2010 to increase the UK  borrowing resouces for the IMF, so the government does have permission to make up to £40 bn available.

Some say it is democracy – but not as we know it. It is true the Euro is a great device for bringing down EU member states governments. Recent victims include Ireland and Portugal, with the Greek government hanging by a thread.  Electors can still change the people who are in a government, and sometimes get more opportunities to do so thanks to the rolling economic and political crises the Euro causes. The difference is they do not get to change the policies.

Electors swept aside the governments of Portugal and Ireland. They might be about to do the same to the Spanish government. The French President now has a big fight on his hands to survive. The Euro is devouring the governments which support it, only to see them replaced by more governments who support it, wanting their share of the common economic punishment.

The officials, Central Banks, IMF, EU Commission and other unelected bodies now have more power and elected governments much less. When a Euro area government falls in a member state in economic trouble, the incoming new government has to subscribe to the terms of the “recovery” plan already in place. Ireland, Portugal and Greece are on financial support schemes from the EU, Euroland and the IMF.  Their governments believe they  have no choice, and meekly follow the policy arranged by the government which they displaced. Italy is moving towards that position, accepting IMF surveillance of its economic policy and agreeing to cuts and tax rises which Euroland requires.

Democracy relies on the consent of the governed. The majority who support the government are broadly happy, because their team is in power. The minority who want a different government are usually happy with the system, because they know they will have a future opportunity to change government if the government in power disappoints more people . Coalitions complicate this position, because electors often get no chance to vote on the Coalition programme. As a result they need to work harder to gain and  keep consent to their programme.

 A healthy democracy needs a strong opposition with a different policy approach. The Opposition can lobby and campaign for the government to adopt more of its views and ideas. The government may do so if they prove to be popular, or if the government’s chosen course is not working. They can put it all to the people in a General Election, and if they win they can then have  opportunity to implement it.

Strong opposition with an alternative programme is important to national hope. Those who don’t like the government can live in hope of change. Those who don’t like individual policies of their current government live in hope that Parliamentary action  by the Opposition will force a change of policy anyway.

In crucial areas of government policy that help determine prosperity, living standards, inflation rates, returns on savings, jobs, and business success, the level of public sector spending and borrowing, the Euro scheme takes most of the decisions away from democratic debate. The individual  Euro member state can no longer call the shots and make changes in these crucial areas. The Opposition in Greece cannot offer a different view on  interest rates, borrowing, public spending and the rest because they have had to buy into the terms of the EU/IMF control of the economy.

The Euro destroys a big part of national democracy. The issue then is how do people change the policy if it is not working or they do not like it? Democratic consent relies on the ability to change policy as well as personnel and on  the hope of a better tomorrow. Euroland politicians have a big task in maintaining  that consent. Blocking the Greek referendum was a political mistake.

Euroland politicians also have a big challenge to set out a compelling vision of how this can work and why it might be better. If they do not allow sensible democratic opposition and proper consultation of the people affected by their one size fits all policy, people will find other ways of dissenting. That is how we have reached the point in Greece where many do not see the need to pay their taxes.

      81  Conservative MPs voted for the referendum motion. 9 more abstained, because they disagreed with the government’s stance.

        However, some of those who voted “No” to a referendum did not necessarily do so because they endorse the current approach to the EU. My neighbouring MP, the Conservative Dr. Phillip Lee has made an interesting statement this week in a local newspaper. He says  his decision to vote “No” “had nothing to do with the Goverment’s whipping operation”. He voted “No” because he feared  a three way referendum as proposed  could mean “no  mandate for withdrawal (from the EU-ed) and a cause in which I believe would have been set back for a generation”. (Wokingham Times  2 November 2011)

           I wonder how many others who voted “No” feel like that?

            Some people think there will be an immediate vote on IMF funds in the Commons. My understanding  is that the government has full authority from the 11 July vote to almost double our subscription to the IMF. No new enlarged numbers seem to have been agreed at Cannes.

           I attended the Committee which considered the increase in money Order  on 5 July to raise concerns along with various other Conservative colleagues. Parliament  required a vote of the whole House, despite the Committee passing the Order. This was taken on 11 July.

           The government got approval for an 88% increase in our subscription to the IMF,  to take our total commitment to around £20 billion. The vote was 274 in favour, and 246 against.  Those against  included 205 Labour MPs and  31 Conservatives.  225 Conservatives voted with the government on a 3 line whip to approve the measure, supported by 48 Lib Dems.   86% of Lib Dems voted, 84.3% of Conservatives, and 80.2% of Labour MPs.  I voted against.