Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

City shows indifference over Lamont's fate: Likely successors to the Chancellor would be little better, say economists

Peter Torday,Economics Correspondent
Sunday 09 May 1993 18:02 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

CITY economists predicted yesterday that financial markets were likely to be unruffled by weekend reports that the Chancellor, Norman Lamont, would be sacked in the wake of last week's Tory electoral rout. There was little confidence that a new Chancellor would make much difference, given the overall weakness of the Government.

'It is the case that he is incompetent and lacks the qualifications to be Chancellor, but none of his likely replacements questioned defending an overvalued exchange rate in the European exchange rate mechanism,' said Chris Dillow, of Nomura Research Institute. 'No one else would have avoided Black Wednesday.'

Glenn Davies, chief economist of Credit Lyonnais Securities, said: 'I think somebody should have gone last autumn, it's a bit late now - Lamont is obviously a scapegoat.'

Bill Martin, chief UK economist at UBS Global Research, argued that the weakness of the Government meant that replacing Mr Lamont would make little difference to policies. There would be a reluctance to raise interest rates when inflation pressures re-emerged and the assault on the structural budget deficit would probably be watered down following adverse reaction to legislation imposing VAT on domestic energy.

But Roger Bootle, chief economist at Midland Global Markets, believed that a change in policies was possible if Mr Lamont were replaced. 'One of the problems of the past year is that Lamont is in a very weak position. His lack of command means that he doesn't stand up to his Treasury advisers and he is very dependent on the Prime Minister. A new Chancellor might be more independent.'

Mr Bootle said Mr Lamont's emphasis on a strong pound as a bulwark against inflation contrasted with the need to let sterling remain low to improve manufacturing industry's competitiveness. 'On the pound and interest rates, a change of chancellor could make a difference.'

yesterday's reaction to reports that Mr Lamont would be moved was in marked contrast to last autumn's widespread City demands for Mr Lamont's resignation after sterling was forced out of the ERM.

The City was then virtually unanimous in calling for him to step down. Mr Davies said the Chancellor had since tried to mollify some of his City critics, cutting interest rates, appointing a panel of outside forecasters, providing help for exports, industry and the housing market, and delaying tax rises until the recovery becomes entrenched. 'Maybe he's been doing a better job.'

(Photograph omitted)

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in