Beware Labour’s deficit hawks

The party’s Hooverites are encircling Ed Miliband.

In my column this week ("Let Miliband be Miliband"), I argue that the new Labour leader has to stand up to pressure from the Tories, the media and the Blairites inside his own party, who want him to tack to the right and conform to conventional wisdom.

With the departure of his elder brother, David ("Labour's lost leader", wails the headline in the Murdoch-owned, Tory-supporting Times), the pressure on Ed to "moderate" some of his positions has intensified. "He has to move right on the deficit," a Mili-D supporter told me in Manchester, as if deficit reduction is a right/left issue. It isn't: it is a right/wrong issue.

But Labour's deficit hawks are getting more and more vocal. The outgoing shadow chancellor, Alistair Darling, warned against the party retreating from his four-year-halve-the-deficit plan at the conference in Manchester, and said Labour had to be "realistic and credible". The former City minister Kitty Ussher, now head of the think tank Demos, used a column in yesterday's Financial Times to urge Miliband to "toughen up on cuts":

The changed environment must now spur him to harden, not soften, [the Darling] position.

"Changed environment"? What could she be referring to? The rather convenient IMF report, published on Tuesday, which praised the coalition's austerity measures — despite the Fund having warned a fortnight ago that "[m]ost advanced countries should not tighten fiscal policies before 2011: tightening sooner could undermine recovery"? Perhaps she missed the economist Adam Posen's remarks this week. From the FT:

The UK faces a long period of sluggish growth, with high unemployment and falling prices, unless the authorities act quickly to stimulate the economy, an influential adviser to the Bank of England has warned.

Sounding the alarm over the possibility of years of stagnation, Adam Posen, an external member of the Monetary Policy Committee, rejected the upbeat arguments issued on Monday by the International Monetary Fund about the economy's nascent recovery.

With the prospect of a repeat of 1930s stagnation rather than 1970s inflation, Mr Posen urged the Bank to restart the money printing presses to inject more life into the economy.

Posen, rather ominously, added:

Let us not forget that it was sustained high unemployment and austerity, the sense that governments were unresponsive to average people's dire economic conditions, which led to the rise of extremist intolerant parties in pre-war Europe.

The current debate over deficit reduction is being conducted on the basis of politics, not economics. The Blairite deficit hawks, fans of triangulation, want to meet Cameron and Osborne somewhere in the "middle", regardless of the fragility of the economic recovery, the lessons of economic history or the principles of Keynesian demand management.

Their central, short-term goal is to prevent Ed Balls from securing the shadow chancellor's brief, even though Balls is the party's best economist and an unrivalled attacker of the Tories (see Gove, Michael). His Bloomberg speech, outlining a progressive and Keynesian alternative to the coalition's cuts agenda, has been hailed by commentators and economists from across the spectrum.

In fact, despite whispers about him lacking "credibility" on the deficit, Balls's position is backed by the Nobel Prize-winning economists Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz, the Financial Times duo Martin Wolf and Samuel Brittan, and the governor of the US Federal Reserve (and scholar of the Great Depression), Ben Bernanke. Are they not "credible" enough for the British commentariat or the Labour right? Personally, I think the words "credible" and "credibility" should be banned from all discussions of the deficit.

(On a side note, on the subject of language, before Labour members or supporters get upset with me for using the derogatory phrase "Hooverites" in the standfirst — above — I should point out that I'm quoting Joe Stiglitz here. He told me, in an interview back in February, that deferring to the credit ratings agencies and "scaremongering" about the debt marked a victory for the "Hooverites" over the "Keynesians".)

I was delighted, however, to see Ed M tell Channel 4 News last night that he would want to tax more than the Darling plan allows for, and it is important that the debate over deficit reduction revolves not just around the timing for cutting, halving or eliminating the state's overdraft, but also the preferred ratio of spending-cuts-to-tax-rises. Ed Balls was the first Labour leadership candidate to argue that Labour's plan should be based on a 50:50 ratio between the two and to point out that Norman Lamont and Kenneth Clarke used a similar ratio when the Tories were cutting the deficit in the 1990s.

I happen to believe that Balls is the best candidate for the job of shadow chancellor (and I made my case for him in my column last week). Others have suggested Yvette Cooper, who is also a strong candidate with an impressive CV. But, outside of this particular married couple, who are the other candidates for the job? Are there any? And will they help Labour stand up to the economic illiteracy of the coalition's fiscal sadists?

Ed M — over to you.

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.

Reuters/New Statesman composite.
Show Hide image

When it comes to social media, we all have a responsibility to avoid sharing upsetting images

If Twitter is the new journalism, we are all editors – and responsible for treating our fellow humans with dignity.

“I wish I hadn’t seen that”, my colleague says from across the desk. It’s been an hour since the first reports came in of a shooting outside Parliament, and the news agency Reuters has started posting photographs of injured people, knocked down by the terrorist as he drove across Westminster Bridge.

In one, a brunette woman leans over a victim whose blood is beginning to stain the wet pavement. Lying on her back, she is framed by scattered postcards sold for tourists which have been knocked to the floor. She is clutching the arm of the woman helping her, but her eyes are staring dead into the photographer’s lens.

Another photograph – the one that my colleague is referring to – disturbs me even more: a man who has fallen (or been pushed?) off the bridge onto a stairwell. He is face down in a pool of blood, his left leg at an unnatural angle. It is impossible to tell if he is alive or not.

Briefly, before I scroll past, I wonder if someone, somewhere is seeing the same picture and experiencing a shock of recognition as they recognise their friend’s clothes.

And then there is one picture which I now cannot find on Twitter, but which, lying in bed last night, I could not stop thinking of: a woman’s legs extended from under the wheel of a bus, her skirt hiked up to show her underwear, her shoes missing.

We are a desk of journalists covering an attack on the Houses of Parliament, so I keep scrolling. It is only later, in an article by the Telegraph, that I learn a junior doctor has declared the woman dead.

Of course, the shock of seeing images like these is nothing compared to what war reporters, doctors or police go through on a regular basis. But a 2015 study at the University of Toronto found that extended exposure to violent or disturbing material can have a severe effect on journalists’ mental health.

The impact can be particularly confusing when one does not anticipate seeing violence.On social media, we increasingly encounter images this way: without warning and without a chance to steel ourselves. This is particularly a problem when it comes to members of the public, whose jobs don’t require them to look at shocking material but who can nevertheless be exposed to it just by virtue of using a social media network.

It is for this reason that, shortly after Reuters published their photographs of the Westminster victims, prominent journalists began posting asking their colleagues not to retweet them. Some protested the fact that Reuters had published them at all.

In today’s media landscape, news moves fast and social media faster. Where a picture editor would have previously had until their print deadline to decide which images to run, now photographers are able to send their work back to the office almost instantaneously, and editors must make a snap decision about what to release.

Deciding what images to use can be a difficult call – especially under pressure. On the one hand, there is the urge to not turn away, to bear witness to the full magnitude of what has happened, even if it is shocking and upsetting. On the other, there is the need to treat fellow human beings with dignity, and particularly to avoid, where possible, showing images of victims whose families have not yet been informed.

Social media makes this process even more difficult. Once released online, photographs of the Westminster attack were quickly saved and re-posted by private individuals, stripped of context or warning. One can choose not to follow the Reuters Pictures account, but one cannot necessarily avoid seeing an image once it is being retweeted, reposted and recycled by private accounts.

As the line between traditional news and social media blurs and we increasingly become participants in the news, as well as consumers of it, our sense of responsibility also shifts. On Twitter, we are our own editors, each charged with making sure we extend dignity to our fellow humans, even – especially – when the news is dramatic and fast-moving.

I was glad, this morning, to encounter fewer and fewer photographs – to not see the girl lying under the bus again. But at 3am last night, I thought about her, and about her family; about them knowing that journalists on desks across Britain had seen up their loved one’s skirt during the last moments of her life. It was, without putting too fine a point on it, no way to encounter a fellow human being.

Over the next few days, we will find out more about who the victims were. The media will release images of them in happier times, tell us about their jobs and careers and children – as is already happening with Keith Palmer, the policeman who we now know died on the Parliamentary Estate.

It is those images which I hope will be shared: not just as a way to resist fear, but as a way of acknowledging them as more than victims – of forging a different connection, based not in horror and voyeurism, but in a small moment of shared humanity.

There is no shame in being affected by graphic images, however removed one “ought” to feel. If you would like someone to talk to, Mind can provide details of local services.

The BBC also provides advice for those upset by the news.

Find out how to turn off Twitter image previews here.

Stephanie Boland is digital assistant at the New Statesman. She tweets at @stephanieboland