Mehdi Hasan

Mehdi Hasan’s polemical take on politics, economics and foreign affairs

RSS

Sorry Peter, the facts of life aren't Conservative

My brief response to Oborne's silly Telegraph column.

By Mehdi Hasan Published 05 January 2012 19:16

In every area of our public life, the Left is losing the argument

proclaims the online headline to Peter Oborne's Telegraph column today. The standfirst goes further:

The facts of life are Conservative - as Labour's smartest minds now realise

Er, not they aren't. I consider Peter to be a good friend and one of the finest minds, and boldest writers, on the centre-right. Unlike so many other Tory-supporting columnists, he isn't tribal and has been willing to denounce Cameron and co when the occasion demands it.

Today's silly column, however, contains a series of unfounded, unsupported and curious claims and assertions, e.g.

It is now widely accepted that the years of New Labour government were an almost unalloyed national disaster. Whichever measure you take - moral, social, economic, or the respect in which Britain is held in the world - we went into reverse.

Er, no it isn't. This sounds like the kind of party-political propaganda which Peter has so often denounced fellow hacks for producing, purveying and peddling in the past. The Tories and their supporters in the press, of course, want people to believe that 13 years of Blair and Brown were an "almost unalloyed national disaster" in order to (a) discredit the social-democratic ideas and values, (b) undermine the legitimacy of the state and, in particular, the welfare state, and (c) make themselves look good, no matter how high unemployment gets, no matter how many riots or protests erupt, on their watch. It is brazen historical revisionism.

Peter begins:

Let's start with economic management, the scene of New Labour's most obvious debacle. In the early months after the 2010 general election, Labour's shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, refused to accept the clear fact that high spending and high borrowing had driven us to economic disaster. He called on George Osborne to spend even more in order to avert recession.

A year on, Balls has lost the argument.

Sorry, has Peter been abroad for the past twelve months? Has he not read the papers? Or looked at the unemployment figures? It is Osborne who lost the argument and lost it badly last November when his growth forecasts were downgraded yet again, his deficit-reduction timetable had to be extended and the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) then revealed that the Chancellor would be borrowing more - an astonishing £158bn more! - than he had planned to in October 2010's Spending Review and an embarrassing £37bn more than the much-mocked Labour plan (or "Darling plan") to cut the deficit in half over the lifetime of this parliament (as outlined in the March 2010 budget). Meanwhile, pretty much everything Balls said in his Bloomberg speech in August 2010 has come to pass. Read it for yourself; judge for yourself. The Keynesian argument, or what the US economist and former White House adviser Christina Romer calls the empirical argument, has, once again, been vindicated.

On a related note, if you want a more nuanced and less gloomy take on the UK's economic performance between 1997 and 2010, check out this recent report from the LSE's Centre for Economic Performance.

Throughout his column, Peter makes the basic mistake of conflating the Labour Party with the left, and acts as if all Labour leaders and politicians believe the same thing (when, of course, there is an ideological gulf between, say, Tony Blair and Ed Miliband). He argues:

Labour has come to accept Duncan Smith's profound insight that welfare payments can trap people in poverty, rather than offer them a hand out of it, thus forcing generations of families into dependence on the state.

This is absurd and ahistorical. There has been a bipartisan consensus for several decades now that the welfare trap exists and needs to be tackled. This isn't some unique or "profound" insight of IDS. The reason left-wingers object to Duncan Smith's welfare "reforms" is because you can't cut the number of people on welfare when there are no jobs available. Meanwhile, it is immoral and unjust to slash £18bn from the welfare budget - that is, from money spent on the poorest, most vulnerable members of society - while taking only £12bn or so from the big banks who caused the economic crisis.

Peter also claims:

The vital importance of this experiment lay in the special circumstances of the post-war period. Throughout this time, the liberal Left, as general election results show, has tended to be unpopular with voters.

That's only if you judge "popularity" on the basis of our disproportionate and dysfunctional first-past-the-post electoral system. For example, the general election of 1983 - widely considered to be Margaret Thatcher's greatest electoral triumph - saw 53 per cent of the public vote for liberals (the SDP/Alliance) and the left (Michael Foot's Labour Party) compared to 42 per cent who voted for Thatcher's Tories. There has never been a Conservative majority in the country in the post-war period - in fact, at the last election, Cameron's Conservatives failed to secure a majority in the country and in the Commons.

Peter writes that

. . . a handful of prime ministers have led governments that reshaped the world we all live in. Since 1945, only two - Clement Attlee and Margaret Thatcher - have fallen into this very rare second category.

It now looks as if Cameron may turn out to be the third. In some ways this is very strange, because Cameron, at heart an
old-fashioned Tory pragmatist, is the least revolutionary Prime Minister one can imagine.

But he has taken the job at a fulcrum moment, when some of the most intelligent minds on the Left have come to realise that the facts of life are Conservative.

Three quick points here: 1) Peter defines Liam Byrne and Stephen Twigg as examples of his "intelligent minds on the Left". This is totally arbitrary and subjective; some would say that such a label better suits, say, Stewart Wood or Gavin Kelly or David Marquand. 2) It is amusing to see Peter now singing Cameron's praises given how critical - and personally critical! - he was of Cameron just a few months ago. 3) He again just declares that "the facts of life are Conservative". Yet, high Tories like Thatcher biographer Charles Moore, seem to be saying otherwise. Unlike Peter, who says literally nothing in his column about the monumental failure of financial capitalism and deregulation, Moore has acknowledged, for instance, that "it turns out - as the Left always claims - that a system purporting to advance the many has been perverted in order to enrich the few". Writing in Oborne's own paper in July 2011, Moore declared:

I'm starting to think that the Left might actually be right

Hear, hear!

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: Conservatives David Cameron

More from Mehdi Hasan

29 comments

Thu, 2012-01-05 20:48 — matthew fox (not verified)

Peter Osuchabore is a hypocrite, Blair and Brown hater, and general pompous fool.

Sat, 2012-01-07 11:31 — john henry (not verified)

Oborne's astonishingly deluded claim is by a right-wing twerp. The mess we are in right now is because of the foolishness of Right-wing economicas and politics that started under Thatcher was and then continued by New Labour.
We now need a Left wing solution to the problem NOT to pile on more agony by the economics and politics of the right. The right cannot provide a solution to a mess that they created. It will only make things WORSE!

Fri, 2012-01-13 10:00 — CharlieLoveday (not verified)

Blair is a Tory!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sat, 2012-01-07 11:42 — john henry (not verified)

Totally agree with philduval above.

The Right created this mess and we have to pay for it and Labour should be banging on about this continuously. Labour as he says have to clean and admit that they got it wrong by the soft touch approach to regulation of the banks, fully supported by the Tories as it was a continuationof Thatcherite policies towards the City. This will then beg the question of the Tories where they stand inrelation to their City backers.

Thu, 2012-01-05 21:23 — representingthemambo (not verified)

How weird, we've done exactly the same on our blog
http://representingthemambo.wordpress.com/2012/01/05/hang-your-head-in-s...
Oborne's article is a disgraceful, dishonest, desperate attempt to shore up a government intent on social vandalism. I expected much better of him......

Thu, 2012-01-05 22:18 — Des Demona (not verified)

@ Mehdi

My hat is tipped. Good article. More please.

Thu, 2012-01-05 22:41 — Peter (not verified)

An excellent and much needed response. 'Silly' really is the most appropriate description of the Oborne piece. Actually, 'deluded' and 'deceitful' and fit pretty well.

Come to think of it, are we missing the point? Is it not the finest satire?

Sun, 2012-01-08 13:29 — John P Reid (not verified)

Mquade, opinion poll after opinion poll,showed SDP supprt's second choice was the Tories look at how amny high brow supporters sid VOte tory in 1992. Danny finklestien, Eric Brown< George brown, David Owen, Chris grayling Paul stanes, Andy cooper Andy hunter Mark hunter,chris broklebank fowler, john haran, apart form Roger liddle and Plly toynbee, there were very few SDP'ers who were ex laobur who went back to laobur

Fri, 2012-01-06 18:41 — PhilDuval

1. The Tories matched New Labour's spending plans right up to 2008. None of the credit rating agencies were concerned about budget deficits up to then.

2. Government borrowing skyrocketed in 2008 because it borrowed to bail out the insolvent banks (which of course remain insolvent but that's another story - mainly due to systemic auditing fraud by the big four accountancy firms http://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2011/12/the-miracle-of-solvency/)

3. The Tories supported the action taken during the financial crisis (not the right action in my opinion but nevertheless) and then used the increased borrowing as a way to claim New Labour had been profiligate! What sickening hypocrisy.

4. If they hate high public spending why didn't the Tories rail against PFI and PPP? Oh, they did a bit but have they repealed them? No. Why? Because PFI and PPP are a funnel of tax payer's money into private pockets. And that is how they plan to make good on the £6.7trn of toxic assets held by zombie UK banks.

The historical revisionism that has gone on these last 18 months is a disgrace. Never mind Keynesian arguments against austerity, Labour should be asking why ordinary people are paying for a crisis caused not just by greed and deregulation but massive systemic fraud. I couldn't care less that it happened under their watch - everyone was drinking the deregulation kool-aid at the time and academic economists had all manner of mathematical models to justify their voodoo risk 'management' - if the Labour party really represents ordinary working people it will say, 'New Labour got it wrong, we shouldn't have deregulated. Now we have got to ensure that ordinary people do not suffer for the sake of those mistakes'. And relentlessly point out the hypocrisy, lies and revisionism of the banker-backed Tories. Because seriously, if they don't this country will not be a civilised place by the end of this decade.

We are being held to ransom by the City and it is a confidence trick. They are not going to relocate anywhere - which mug of a country would underwrite their vastly overvalued assets in the same way that the UK gov has?

Let the insolvent banks go to the wall, guarantee ordinary people's deposits and start national investment banks to lend to productive sustainable businesses.

Fri, 2012-01-06 01:14 — John P Reid (not verified)

1983 - widely considered to be Margaret Thatcher's greatest electoral triumph - saw 53 per cent of the public vote for liberals (the SDP/Alliance) and the left (Michael Foot's Labour Party) compared to 42 per cent who voted for Thatcher's -The majority of people who voted SDP liberal in 1983,'s second choce was the Tories, Owen, Cyril smith Etal were huge thatcher fans.

at the last election, Cameron's Conservatives failed to secure a majority in the country and in the Commons.-Yes but the oppostion to cameron was Brown And Nu labour there as no left wing alternative to cause the Tories to nt have A clear alternative.
reperesnting the rambo's blog's rubbish too.

Fri, 2012-01-06 01:53 — John P Reid (not verified)

Yes and labour lost the '83 election as IT wasn't left wing enough, and if laobur lose next time it won't be because the public want a centre govnerment it'll be that the pulbic didn't want the tories they just oted for them anyway, sigh

Sun, 2012-01-08 20:23 — quattro man (not verified)

Osborne is spot on, his comments are "on the money". Mehdi you are increasingly sounding like a drowning man clutching at straws, funny but sad. The UK is moving to the right and not coming back....ever...Goodbye.

Fri, 2012-01-06 10:00 — Andy (not verified)

"Whichever measure you take - moral, social, economic, or the respect in which Britain is held in the world - we went into reverse."

Moral - invading Iraq and Afghanistan certainly lost Britain the moral high ground it may have thought it had.
Social - British society is far less cohesive. There is a lot of fear and distrust of different sectors and races.
Economic - the current economic situation had it roots in the Labour times. They certainly did nothing to avoid this, and it was completely forseeable (I predicted a credit collapse back in 2000)
How Britain is viewed in the world - as a non-Brit I can assure you that the UK is viewed as America's lapdog by most of the world.

So on that paragraph at least, he is correct. Especially as your response rabbits on without actually trying to prove him wrong on those points.

If you want to regain lost face in the world you'll haul Tony Blair in and charge him with war crimes.

Sat, 2012-01-07 20:13 — Kinner (not verified)

@john henry

The Tories actually said in 2005 that more regulation of The City was needed. But don't let facts get in the way, eh?

Fri, 2012-01-06 11:53 — Johan (not verified)

Keynesianism vindicated? You don't understand economics. This can never be prooved.

Somebody who just wants a larger public sector just uses Keynesianism as a pretext. The state does what it likes and everybody has to be happy with it.

But the state does not create wealth. Only the private sector does. It is common knowledge. A real Keynesian just wants to stimulate private investments. And this is the problem. You cannnot proove, that a Keynesian economy has more private investments than mainly monetarist economies like Germany, Netherlands or Switzerland.

The problem is that Keynesianism creates distrust compared to countries which have price stability as first priority, the money needed for private investments disappears in inflation, devaluation etcetera and the state does not have the sense of priorities but creates another deficit. Keynesianism is mostly used by warlike societies (Vietnam war, Reagan era, Iraq war, Germany in the thirties) and is only used for political reasons.

In other words, the left is sacrificing the economic concerns of its own voters.

Fri, 2012-01-06 12:06 — MatthewBlott

I read Oborne's article and found myself shaking my head at the brazen disregard of the facts - the most obvious being we had not had 13 years of particularly left-wing government. The Guardian's Simon Jenkins - not a party political or partisan writer - says the Blair / Brown years were essentially a continuation of Thatcherism.

Fri, 2012-01-06 12:07 — Shinsei67

"It is Osborne who lost the argument and lost it badly last November when his growth forecasts were downgraded yet again,"

As you know perfectly well they aren't Osborne's forecasts they are the OBR's.

And as you also know very well the reason for the downgrade is entirely due to a higher than forecast oil price, not austerity or cuts (which were all factored into the forecasts).

And as you also know perfectly well Darling's deficit forecasts (and they were his and not the independent OBR's) were based on ridiculously high growth forecasts. In the face of much higher oil prices and the undoubted higher interest rates the UK would have under Labour's economic management then the deficit and debt profile would be even worse than it is now.

Fri, 2012-01-06 12:18 — Chris Baldwin (not verified)

Every bad aspect of the New Labour years would have happened under a Conservative government. That's because in many areas, notably economic and foreign policies, the parties were the same. Fortunately, Labour still had a few residual good ideas from the pre-Blair years, so we were able to improve things somewhat.

We all need to remember above all else that for all his later distortions, Cameron's economic policies were identical to Blair and Brown's until the crisis, after which they were worse.

Fri, 2012-01-06 12:19 — Chris Yapp (not verified)

Someone should send Swift's " a modest proposal" to Oborne. If he wants to write satire he should be shown the benchmark...
On the other hand he might think it's real..

Fri, 2012-01-06 12:28 — Johan (not verified)

Chris Baldwin

I do not know Labour's good ideas, but I have never heard of an opposition asking for more austerity than the government. Why should Cameron have done this when he was in opposition? Miliband has no plan at all.

Fri, 2012-01-06 13:51 — mcquade

"The majority of people who voted SDP liberal in 1983,'s second choce was the Tories"

And how do you work that out since they had no way of expressing a second choice? Desperate guessing, methinks.

Tue, 2012-02-21 07:56 — Abraham2

The problem is that Keynesianism creates distrust compared to countries which have price stability as first priority, the money needed for private investments disappears in inflation, devaluation etc. and the state does not have the sense of priorities but creates another deficit. Keynesianism is mostly used by warlike societies (Vietnam war, Reagan era, Iraq war, Germany in the thirties) and is only used for political reasons. http://www.101realestate.net/

Thu, 2012-01-05 19:57 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

Peter is entitled to his opinion, as are we all. The Conservative Student Union at Oxford University seems to be testing triumphalism to breaking point.
£10k for fortified wine! Mocking young Conservative members if they hadn't the gumption, or their parents the fees, to attend the right school. Impersonating those Provincials who speak with an accent. Dear me!
OK, the Tories had three ex-Grammar school prime ministers on the trot but public school sorts are no more that 11% of the population - counting non-Brits. Please, Peter wait your turn. Queue, as is the British tradition.
And if we hear any more nonsense about Mrs T, or Meryl Streep, then we'll have to put the record straight.
Mrs T was one of Britain's most unpopular PMs in the very early eighties. As Ted was tired of telling us iIt took the Falklands to save her neck. [ Ted finished joint first in the Civil Service exam ]
Then Mrs T was lumbered with the 'Poll Tax'! Standing fast in the face of electoral fury, Mrs T almost brought the Tory Party down.
Enter Kenny 'Softy' Clarke, the statutary ex-grammar school swot, and Frankie The Finger Maude. Frankie's dad was kicked upstairs but the Hussif from Finchley.
Exit red-eyed Mrs T - and without a general election. The Mandarins, public school products, ignored by electorally savvy Tories and Mrs T's office boy makes it up the greasy pole.

English Eccentric

Fri, 2012-01-06 15:58 — zygote (not verified)

Right on Mehdi! I like Oborne too; he's generally a very thought provoking and intellectually honest columnist, but this latest effort is just partisan crap.Its not that I just disagree with him - as a left winger I disagree with him frequently, but the reason he's worth reading is because he's normally prepared to give a nuanced and complex analysis. In this latest piece he says that Labour's time was an unmittigated disaster - that they did virtually zero good. This is the half baked 'analysis' of the most third rate, off the shelf tory commentary - its practically a parody! One suspects that after several weeks (months even) of very sensitive and clever writing on a host of issues he was feeling a bit knackered and so churned out this simplistic shite in order to give himself a rest.