Don’t make the same mistakes as Canada

Canada’s spending cuts solved a debt crisis but also created mass homelessness.

Who can persuade the government not to follow a deficit reduction model that solved a debt crisis but left in its wake mass homelessness and an even deeper housing shortage? Speaking in the Commons this month, the Chancellor said "we need to look to Canada and their experiences in the early 1990s when they too faced a massive Budget deficit".

True, the Liberal administration there turned a 9 per cent deficit into a surplus in just three years. But the cuts, which included slashing funding for affordable housing, had devastating consequences.

They brought homelessness -- previously a marginal problem -- into the mainstream, hitting families and older people for the first time and forcing the Canadian government to spend even more money in emergency funding. The country also faced a shortage of social housing where supply ground to a halt.

The experience shows how cuts to housing can damage the wider economy. So why is George Osborne looking to the same model to slash our deficit?

In next week's emergency Budget, £610m in funding earmarked for new social and affordable homes is at risk. Coupled with the £150m of cuts announced in May, this would mean 12,625 fewer homes built per year and 19,000 job losses at a time of record unemployment.

Shelter analysis released earlier this week shows that for every pound chopped from public investment in new housing, the economy will take a hit of at least £3.50. Predicted cuts could cost the economy £2.7bn, and this couldn't come at a worse time.

Housing doesn't sit in isolation: cuts not only mean fewer homes for the 1.8 million households on waiting lists. They also bring the loss of jobs, skills and economic benefits that new homes provide.

Pulling funding quickly before the housebuilding industry has recovered would drag an industry of critical importance to its knees, and bring housebuilding to a standstill. Every year we fail to build, we sink deeper into a housing crisis, which will eventually become impossible to get out of.

Large-scale job losses would also cause a skills drain that we know, judging by the last recession, could take a decade to recover from. When housebuilding does pick up again, we won't have the capacity or the expertise to build the homes we need. We owe it to future generations to continue investment so they are not saddled with this legacy.

Housing is one of the keys to economic recovery. More homes built means more jobs, more tax revenue and reduced welfare payments at a time when government is desperate to hack back the housing benefit bill.

It also acts as a catalyst for other markets and is the foundation on which many industries are built.

If the government is to make cuts, they must be intelligent cuts. Working closely with organisations such as Shelter will be critical -- or we will all be paying the price.

Campbell Robb is the chief executive of Shelter.

Special offer: get 12 issues of the New Statesman for just £5.99 plus a free copy of "Liberty in the Age of Terror" by A C Grayling.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What is the New Hampshire primary, and why does it matter?

Although the contest has proved less influential in recent years, the New Hampshire primary is still a crucial event.

While the Iowa caucuses are the first electoral event in the US’s presidential process, the New Hampshire primary is the candidates' most important early test before the action explodes across the rest of the country.

The stakes are high. If the nominations aren’t decided soon, the campaigns will be damned to a marathon of costly state primaries and caucuses; New Hampshire is their first best chance to avoid that fate. But it didn’t always work this way.

Primaries only became the key element of the nomination process relatively recently. Until the postwar era, presidential candidates were chosen at the national conventions in the summer: in the run-up to the 1960 election, future president John F Kennedy famously entered only one primary (West Virginia’s) to prove that a Roman Catholic could win a Protestant state.

It was only after the turmoil of the 1968 nomination, widely perceived as an establishment fix, that the McGovern-Fraser Commission changed the Democratic party’s rules to end the power of the “smoke-filled room” over the nominating process, prompting many states to adopt meaningful primaries for both parties' nominations.

First in the nation

Unlike caucuses, which generally are used in smaller states that would rather not pay for full-scale ballots, primaries are secret-ballot elections that allow voters to choose who will be their preferred nominee. But not all primaries are the same.

The parties sometimes hold their votes on the same day, as they do in New Hampshire, or on different ones. A primary may be open (allowing any voter to register a preference) or closed (allowing only pre-registered party supporters to vote). New Hampshire has a mixed system which allows voters to register in a primary on the day before voting without declaring a party affiliation.

That means that while all voters registered with a party must vote in that party’s ballot, the New Hampshire result often hinges on these unaffiliated voters. Because they can vote in whichever ballot they like and can register so close to primary day, the state is notoriously difficult to poll.

New Hampshire has cemented its first-in-the-nation status by passing a law that requires its lawmakers to move the state’s primary to pre-empt any other state’s, no matter how early. That means it’s traditionally been not just an important indicator of how candidates are faring, but a way of winnowing the field and generating or killing funding. Candidates who perform poorly generally find their access to money suddenly dries up.

The arguments against New Hampshire’s outsize role are many. Like Iowa, it’s hardly representative of the US as a whole, being a small state with an overwhelmingly white population. And while (unlike Iowa) it has no powerful evangelical Christian element, it retains a very distinctive tradition of small-town New England politics that demand a particular kind of face-to-face, low-to-the-ground campaigning.

But this time around, other factors have cut into New Hampshire’s significance.

On the Republican side, the primary’s winnowing role was in large part pre-empted when the TV networks holding debates allowed only the higher-polling candidates on stage, effectively creating a two-tier system that tarred lower-polling candidates as also-rans long before voting began. Meanwhile, the financial calculations have been transformed by campaign finance reforms that allow for almost unlimited outside fundraising – allowing candidates to build up the reserves they need to withstand a humiliating defeat.

Nonetheless, a truly surprising New Hampshire result could still change everything.

Shuffling the deck

New Hampshire hasn’t always chosen the winner in either the nomination contests or the general election. But it has provided more than its share of political upsets and key turning points, from persuading Lyndon Johnson not to stand again in 1968 to resurrecting the candidacies of Hillary Clinton and John McCain in 2008.

The incremental campaigns for the nominations are all about the perception of momentum, and a notional front-runner can be dislodged or destabilised by a poor performance early on. That’s especially true in this year’s cycle, in which both major parties are grappling with huge surges of support for outsider, anti-establishment candidates.

Mainstream Republicans have spent months trying to end Donald Trump’s noisy domination of their crowded field. Trump was indeed defeated in Iowa, but not by a moderating force: instead, it was radical conservative Ted Cruz who overturned him.

Cruz is loathed by the party establishment, and he stands little chance of appealing to mainstream voters. Marco Rubio’s strong showing in Iowa briefly made him something of a standard-bearer for the party’s moderates, but a disastrous turn at the last debate before New Hampshire has thrown the future of his candidacy into doubt.

The primary will also reveal who, if any, of the more moderate Republican candidates – among them Jeb Bush, John Kasich and Chris Christie – will survive. While Bush has a massive funding advantage (albeit with precious little to show for it), Kasich and Christie both need a strong showing in New Hampshire to reinvigorate their financial reserves.

On the Democratic side, the key question is whether Bernie Sanders can make good on the surprising energy of his populist, grassroots challenge to Hillary Clinton. He is currently the heavy favourite in New Hampshire: even if Clinton somehow pulls off a miracle win there as she did in 2008, the closeness of the race is already stimulating both campaigns' national organisation and spending. And with what could be a long race between them heating up, the two’s growing mutual acrimony may yet start to undermine the Democrats' national appeal.

Gillian Peele Associate Professor in Politics and Tutorial Fellow at the University of Oxford.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.