Labour goes on the attack with new Cameron poster

New poster mocks Tory election line, stating: "I'm cutting the NHS. Not the deficit."

With the Tories preparing to gather in Birmingham, the Labour attack machine has sprung into life with the launch of a new poster and a borrowing counter. Following her Q&A with Andy Burnham earlier this week, my colleague Caroline Crampton revealed that Labour was planning a parody of the famous "airbrushed" image of Cameron - and here it is.

The line "I'm cutting the NHS" is based on Treasury figures showing that since 2010, health spending has fallen from £105,073 million to £104,333 million in real terms, while the line "not the deficit" is based on the most recent borrowing figures from the ONS, which showed that borrowing so far this financial year was 21.8% (£10.6bn) higher than in the same period last year.

Labour states:

This means that in the first five months of the year the UK was borrowing:

o        £69.3 million more a day
o        £2.9 million more an hour
o        £48,112 more a minute
o        £802 more a second

In response, we can expect the Tories to point out that they have reduced the deficit by a quarter since coming to office (from £159bn in 2009-10 to £119.3bn in 2011-12), while arguing that the NHS figures are merely the result of an underspend, not a deliberate decision to cut.

But while George Osborne may have a good story to tell on the deficit at the moment (polling found that voters were more inclined to support the coalition's austerity measures when told that annual borrowing had fallen by a quarter), the disappearance of growth means that this trend will not continue. Forecasters expect the government to miss its deficit target for this year (£119.9bn) by as much as £30bn. For the first time since Osborne entered No. 11, borrowing is set rise in annual terms, a significant blow to his political narrative of "balancing the books". By 2015, the Tories hope, the situation will have improved, but for now, this is a powerful attack line for Labour.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: The divisions within Labour

Labour’s divisions have rendered it unfit for government at a moment of profound political change.

Labour is a party torn between its parliamentary and activist wings. Since Jeremy Corbyn, who this week appealed desperately for unity, was re-elected by a landslide last September, Labour has become the first opposition in 35 years to lose a ­by-election to the governing party and has continually trailed the Conservatives by a double-digit margin. Yet polling suggests that, were Mr Corbyn’s leadership challenged again, he would win by a comfortable margin. Meanwhile, many of the party’s most gifted and experienced MPs refuse to serve on the front bench. In 2015 Mr Corbyn made the leadership ballot only with the aid of political opponents such as Margaret Beckett and Frank Field. Of the 36 MPs who nominated him, just 15 went on to vote for him.

Having hugely underestimated the strength of the Labour left once, the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) will not do so again. In the contest that will follow Mr Corbyn’s eventual departure, the centrists could lock out potential successors such as the shadow business secretary, Rebecca Long-Bailey. Under Labour’s current rules, candidates require support from at least 15 per cent of the party’s MPs and MEPs.

This conundrum explains the attempt by Mr Corbyn’s supporters to reduce the threshold to 5 per cent. The “McDonnell amendment” (named after the shadow chancellor, who failed to make the ballot in 2007 and 2010) is being championed by the Bennite Campaign for Labour Party Democracy and Jon Lansman of Momentum, who is interviewed by Tanya Gold on page 34. “For 20 years the left was denied a voice,” he tweeted to the party’s deputy leader, Tom Watson, on 19 March. “We will deny a voice to no one. We face big challenges, and we need our mass membership to win again.”

The passage of the amendment at this year’s Labour conference would aid Mr Lansman’s decades-long quest to bring the party under the full control of activists. MPs have already lost the third of the vote they held under the electoral college system. They face losing what little influence they retain.

No Labour leader has received less support from his MPs than Mr Corbyn. However, the amendment would enable the election of an even more unpopular figure. For this reason, it should be resolutely opposed. One should respect the motivation of the members and activists, yet Labour must remain a party capable of appealing to a majority of people, a party that is capable of winning elections.

Since it was founded, Labour has been an explicitly parliamentary party. As Clause One of its constitution states: “[The party’s] purpose is to organise and maintain in Parliament and in the country a political Labour Party.” The absurdity of a leader opposed by as much as 95 per cent of his own MPs is incompatible with this mission. Those who do not enjoy the backing of their parliamentary colleagues will struggle to persuade the voters that they deserve their support.

Labour’s divisions have rendered it unfit for government at a moment of profound political change. Rather than formalising this split, the party needs to overcome it – or prepare for one of the greatest defeats in its history.

This article first appeared in the 23 March 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Trump's permanent revolution