The void in Osborne's speech

The shadow chancellor has no plan for growth

From the Conservative conference

There was a disturbing void in George Osborne's speech today. His address to the conference lacked a single positive proposal to stimulate economic growth. The announcement of a one-year public-sector pay freeze, a rise in the retirement age to 66 and cuts to baby bonds and tax credits left us in no doubt that the Tories will reduce the deficit. But Osborne forgot what Gordon Brown correctly identified in his TUC speech: "growth is the best antidote to debt". There was no evidence of anything like a coherent Conservative strategy for growth.

Worse still, the shadow chancellor derided those measures Labour has taken to stimulate the economy. His claim that the VAT cut failed entirely is not supported by research. In February, three economists from the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that the cut had raised real consumption by 1.2 per cent.

The refrain of Osborne's speech was "We're all in this together", so how fair were the pledges he made? He was right to resist calls from the Thatcherite right to scrap the 50p income-tax rate. His threat to use the tax system to punish banks that refuse to curtail extravagant bonuses was wise. And it was reasonable of him to remind voters that it was the Tories who first proposed action against non-doms.

But elsewhere, Osborne's attempt to clothe himself in progressive garb did not succeed. He reaffirmed his party's grossly regressive pledge to raise the inheritance-tax threshold to £1m within the life of the next parliament. He relished the cheers for the Tories' tax break for married couples, yet this remains an example of the unfairness he attacked elsewhere in his speech. A tax that would give the wealthy husband on his third marriage priority over the struggling single mother cannot be justified. It is also at odds with the Tories' questionable but progressive plans to means-test tax credits and to scrap child trust funds for better-off families.

After this speech, there is nothing to suggest that Osborne would deliver either a more prosperous economy or a fairer society.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Labour's purge: how it works, and what it means

The total number of people removed will be small - but the rancour will linger. 

Labour has just kicked off its first big wave of expulsions, purging many voters from the party’s leadership rolls. Twitter is ablaze with activists who believe they have been kicked out because they are supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. There are, I'm told, more expulsions to come - what's going on?  Is Labour purging its rolls of Corbyn supporters?

The short answer is “No”.

If that opener feels familiar, it should: I wrote it last year, when the last set of purges kicked off, and may end up using it again next year. Labour has stringent rules about expressing support for other candidates and membership of other parties, which account for the bulk of the expulsions. It also has a code of conduct on abusive language which is also thinning the rolls, with supporters of both candidates being kicked off. 

Although the party is in significantly better financial shape than last year, it still is running a skeleton staff and is recovering from an expensive contest (in this case, to keep Britain in the European Union). The compliance unit itself remains small, so once again people from across the party staff have been dragooned in.

The process this year is pretty much the same: Labour party headquarters doesn’t have any bespoke software to match its voters against a long list of candidates in local elections, compiled last year and added to the list of candidates that stood against Labour in the 2016 local and devolved elections, plus a large backlog of complaints from activists.

It’s that backlog that is behind many of the highest-profile and most controversial examples. Last year, in one complaint that was not upheld, a local member was reported to the Compliance Unit for their failure to attend their local party’s annual barbecue. The mood in Labour, in the country and at Westminster, is significantly more bitter this summer than last and the complaints more personal. Ronnie Draper, the general secretary of the Bfawu, the bakers’ union, one of Corbyn’s biggest supporters in the trade union movement, has been expelled, reported for tweets which included the use of the word “traitors” to refer to Labour opponents of Corbyn.  Jon Will Chambers, former bag carrier to Stella Creasy, and a vocal Corbyn critic on Twitter, has been kicked out for using a “Theresa May” twibbon to indicate his preference for May over Andrea Leadsom, in contravention of the party’s rules.

Both activities breach the letter of the party’s rules although you can (and people will) make good arguments against empowering other people to comb through the social media profiles of their opponents for reasons to dob them in.  (In both cases, I wouldn’t be shocked if both complaints were struck down on appeal)

I would be frankly astonished if Corbyn’s margin of victory – or defeat, as unlikely as that remains in my view – isn’t significantly bigger than the number of people who are barred from voting, which will include supporters of both candidates, as well as a number of duplicates (some people who paid £25 were in fact members before the freeze date, others are affliated trade unionists, and so on). 

What is unarguably more significant, as one party staffer reflected is, “the complaints are nastier now [than last year]”. More and more of the messages to compliance are firmly in what you might call “the barbecue category” – they are obviously groundless and based on personal animosity. That doesn’t feel like the basis of a party that is ready to unite at any level. Publicly and privately, most people are still talking down the chances of a split. It may prove impossible to avoid.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.