Believe it or not, Labour has a good-ish story to tell

Today’s growth figures confirm the recession is over -- for now.

So, it's confirmed. We didn't slip back into negative growth in the first quarter of 2010 and we have -- so far! -- dodged the deadly "double-dip" recession.

From the Guardian:

The Office for National Statistics said its first estimate of GDP for January to March showed growth of 0.2 per cent following 0.4 per cent growth in the final quarter of 2009. Economists had predicted growth on average of 0.4 per cent, although predictions in a Reuters poll had ranged from 0.2 per cent to 0.5 per cent, with some forecasters warning January's harsh weather could have knocked output.

The article, however, goes on to point out:

Economists said the growth figure was likely to be revised higher when the ONS issues two more detailed estimates in May and June once it has collated more data.

That is exactly what happened in March when GPD growth for the last quarter of 2009 was revised up to 0.4 per cent, from an initial estimate of 0.1 per cent. So, it's not all bad news.

In fact, this has been a week of economic clouds for Labour -- but each with a silver lining. The growth figure was not as high as hoped for, but, let's be frank, at least there was growth (and the BBC's Stephanie Flanders highlights the "stonking 0.7 per cent estimate for growth" in manufacturing, which is, she says, "the strongest quarterly performance for that part of the economy in many years").

Unemployment hit a 14-year high but the claimant count continued to fall -- and you'd be twice as likely to be on the dole in the 1980s as you are today. And the Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that the Budget deficit in 2009-1010, while a record for peacetime at £163bn, was more than £3bn lower than anticipated.

Oh, and while Ken Clarke invoked the spectre of an IMF bailout to fearmonger about the prospects of a hung parliament, the IMF itself released a report that implicitly backed Labour's fiscal strategy. In its influential World Economic Outlook report, the IMF said that the west's economies were too weak for spending cuts, concluding: "In most advanced economies, fiscal and monetary policies should maintain a supportive thrust in 2010 to sustain growth and employment." Bad luck, Ken.

On the non-economic front, the latest statistics from the British Crime Survey and the police show that crime is down by 7 per cent, despite the recession. "The British Crime Survey shows the risk of being a victim of crime is at the lowest level in almost 30 years," said Keith Bristow, head of crime at the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo).

Net migration is falling, according to the ONS. Households are better off in 2010 than they were in 1997, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS). Higher spending has "improved quality" in the NHS, according the LSE's Centre for Economic Performance election report. And so on . . .

Let's not be under any illusions -- or get carried away. This Labour government screwed up a lot (especially abroad), and could have achieved wide-ranging and irrevocable social-democratic and constitutional reforms to the UK had it chosen to do so. Attlee achieved more in six years than Blair and Brown achieved in 13. And so there is no doubt in my mind that, overall, the party squandered its 13 years in office and its large Commons majorities.

But, nonetheless, it has a good-ish story to tell in this particular post-crash, post-expenses election -- despite the broken-Britain/bankrupt-Britain propaganda pushed by the Tories and their supporters in the right-wing press.

So why don't Brown and co tell it? As Steve Richards of the Independent points out:

Labour is seeking a fourth term. As David Miliband has put it, his party is making "a massive ask". Such a quest would be challenging at the best of times. After a recession and the expenses scandal, this is not by any means the best of times. In such circumstances it should be seeking to set the agenda ever hour of every day. Brown and members of the cabinet (what happened to the idea of presenting Labour as an experienced team?) should be at early-morning press conferences, mid-afternoon press conferences, rallies, and giving interviews around the clock.

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

How will Theresa May meet her commitment to low-earners?

The Prime Minister will soon need to translate generalities into specifics. 

The curtailed Conservative leadership contest (which would not have finished yet) meant that Theresa May had little chance to define her agenda. But of the statements she has made since becoming prime minister, the most notable remains her commitment to lead a government "driven not by the interests of the privileged few, but by yours." 

When parliament returns on 5 September, and the autumn political season begins, May will need to translate this generality into specifics. The defining opportunity to do so will be the Autumn Statement. Originally intended by George Osborne to be a banal update of economic forecasts, this set-piece more often resembled a second Budget. Following the momentous Brexit vote, it certainly will under Philip Hammond. 

The first priority will be to demonstrate how the government will counter the threat of recession. Osborne's target of a budget surplus by 2020 has wisely been abandoned, granting the new Chancellor the freedom to invest more in infrastructure (though insiders make it clear not to expect a Keynesian splurge).

As well as stimulating growth, Hammond will need to reflect May's commitment to those "just managing" rather than the "privileged few". In her speech upon becoming prime minister, she vowed that "when it comes to taxes, we’ll prioritise not the wealthy, but you". A natural means of doing so would be to reduce VAT, which was increased to a record high of 20 per cent in 2010 and hits low-earners hardest. Others will look for the freeze on benefit increases to be lifted (with inflation forecast to rise to 3 per cent next year). May's team are keenly aware of the regressive effect of loose monetary policy (low interest rates and quantitative easing), which benefits wealthy asset-owners, and vow that those who lose out will be "compensated" elsewhere. 

A notable intervention has come from Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative chair of the Treasury select committee. He has called for the government to revive the publication of distributional analyses following Budgets and Autumn Statements, which was ended by George Osborne last year (having been introduced by the coalition in 2010). 

In a letter to Hammond, Tyrie wrote: "I would be grateful for an assurance that you will reinstate the distributional analysis of the effects of the budget and autumn statement measures on household incomes, recently and mistakenly discontinued by your predecessor." He added: "The new prime minister is committing her government to making Britain a country that works 'not for a privileged few, but for every one of us'. A high level of transparency about the effects of tax and welfare policy on households across the income distribution would seem to be a logical, perhaps essential starting point." 

Whether the government meets this demand will be an early test of how explicit it intends to be in reducing disparities. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.