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.

Getty
Show Hide image

Labour must learn the secrets of the Scottish Conservatives

 A Faustian pact with the SNP is not the short cut back to power some in Labour think it is. 

If Labour wants to recover as a political force, in Scotland or nationally, it must do the hard work of selling voters on a British, progressive party. But some in both the SNP and Labour sense a shortcut - a "progressive alliance"

Progressives might be naturally cautious about taking advice from a Conservative, but anybody covering Scottish politics for a Tory website is very familiar with life in the doldrums. And there are a few things to be learnt down there. 

First, as Scottish Labour members will tell anyone who listens, the SNP talk an excellent progressive game, particularly on any area where they’re in opposition. But in government the Nationalists have simply navigated by two stars - differentiating Scotland from England to the greatest extent possible, and irritating as few people as possible, all in order to engineer support for independence.

Independence itself would, according to nearly all objective assessments, involve a sharp adjustment in Scottish public expenditure, and painful consequences for those who depend on it. Yet this does little to dent the SNP’s enthusiasm. All their political reasoning is worked out backwards from that overriding goal.

There is no reason to believe that the nationalists' priorities at Westminster would be any different. Joining the SNP in "progressive alliance" would be a poison pill for Labour. 

For the larger party would be in a double bind. Govern cautiously, respecting the relative weakness of the left in England and Wales, and the SNP will paint its coalition partner as "Red Tory", taking credit for whatever was popular in Scotland and disowning the rest. 

But drive through a more radical programme with SNP votes (presumably after dismantling "English Votes for English Laws"), and risk permanently alienating huge sections of the electorate south of the border. Those Miliband-in-Salmond’s-pocket pictures would be just the start.

Scottish Labour is familiar with the reality of the SNP in power. But that's not to say it isn't making its own mistakes. Too often, it tries to strike the same sort of bargain with small-n nationalism.

Constitutionally-focused politics isn’t kind to social democrats, as Irish Labour will tell you. So it’s clear why Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale would wish to believe that there is a split-the-difference constitutional position which would, as this article has it, offer “an escape from the black and white world of referendum politics”.

But incantations about "federalism" and "home rule" aren’t going to save Labour. They’re an attempt to appeal to everybody, and are neither intellectually nor politically adequate to the challenge facing the party.

Holyrood is already one of the most powerful sub-state legislatures on earth, so "federalism" is at this point mostly a question of how England is run. If “more powers” were actually going to stop nationalism, we’d have seen some evidence of it during the last 20 years.

And as political tactics go, it won’t woo back voters whom the SNP have persuaded that independence is a progressive cause, but it will alienate voters who care about the union.

Here, Scottish Labour should learn from the Conservatives. The leader in Scotland, Ruth Davidson, realised that voters were always going to have better non-Conservative options on the ballot paper than the Tories, so there was no way back that didn’t involve selling voters on Conservatism. A new Conservatism in important respects, but nonetheless a British, centre-right party.

Labour too must recognise that they are never going to be a more appealing option than the SNP to voters who believe separatism is a good idea. Instead, they must sell voters on what they are: a British, centre-left party. The progressive case for Britain, and against independence, is there to be made.

Labour needs to sell the United Kingdom, and the Britishness underlying it, as a progressive force. As long as left-wing voters remain attached to independence and the SNP, despite all the implications, Labour will be marginalised and the union in danger. 

Henry Hill is assistant editor of ConservativeHome, and has written their Red, White, and Blue column on Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland since 2013. Follow him @HCH_Hill.