Sir Alan Budd’s past criticisms of the Tories

Budd warned against early spending cuts and accused Thatcher of waging class war.

There may or may not be a political motive to Sir Alan Budd's surprise resignation as head of the Office for Budget Responsibility. But what one can say with certainty is that claims that his independence was compromised will have hurt him.

A leading economist and a founding member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, Budd has long prided himself on his willingness to highlight uncomfortable truths.

Earlier this year, as the clamour for spending cuts grew, he warned:

If you go too quickly, then there is a risk that the recovery will be snuffed out and we will go back into a recession -- I mean what the Americans say: "Remember 1937."

There is now growing evidence that George Osborne's decision to reject the counsel of figures such as our own David Blanchflower, Robert Skidelsky and the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, is tipping Britain back into recession.

It was also Budd, as my colleague Daniel Trilling has previously noted, who correctly argued that the Thatcher government raised unemployment for political purposes.

Here's the key exchange from Adam Curtis's 1992 documentary series Pandora's Box:

Curtis: For some economists who were involved in this story, there is a further question: were their theories used to disguise political policies that would have otherwise been very difficult to implement in Britain?

Budd: The nightmare I sometimes have, about this whole experience, runs as follows. I was involved in making a number of proposals which were partly at least adopted by the government and put in play by the government. Now, my worry is . . . that there may have been people making the actual policy decisions . . . who never believed for a moment that this was the correct way to bring down inflation.

They did, however, see that it would be a very, very good way to raise unemployment, and raising unemployment was an extremely desirable way of reducing the strength of the working classes -- if you like, that what was engineered there in Marxist terms was a crisis of capitalism which re-created a reserve army of labour and has allowed the capitalists to make high profits ever since.

Now again, I would not say I believe that story, but when I really worry about all this, I worry whether that indeed was really what was going on.

The argument that the Thatcher government used unemployment as a weapon of class war is not an uncommon one. It's just that the sort of people who make it don't tend to move on to advise a Conservative chancellor. I expect we'll learn more about the real reasons for Budd's departure later this week.

Special subscription offer: Get 12 issues for £12 plus a free copy of Andy Beckett's "When the Lights Went Out".

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Carl Court/Getty
Show Hide image

To stop Jeremy Corbyn, I am giving my second preference to Andy Burnham

The big question is whether Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper will face Jeremy in the final round of this election.

Voting is now underway in the Labour leadership election. There can be no doubt that Jeremy Corbyn is the frontrunner, but the race isn't over yet.

I know from conversations across the country that many voters still haven't made up their mind.

Some are drawn to Jeremy's promises of a new Jerusalem and endless spending, but worried that these endless promises, with no credibility, will only serve to lose us the next general election.

Others are certain that a Jeremy victory is really a win for Cameron and Osborne, but don't know who is the best alternative to vote for.

I am supporting Liz Kendall and will give her my first preference. But polling data is brutally clear: the big question is whether Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper will face Jeremy in the final round of this election.

Andy can win. He can draw together support from across the party, motivated by his history of loyalty to the Labour movement, his passionate appeal for unity in fighting the Tories, and the findings of every poll of the general public in this campaign that he is best placed candidate to win the next general election.

Yvette, in contrast, would lose to Jeremy Corbyn and lose heavily. Evidence from data collected by all the campaigns – except (apparently) Yvette's own – shows this. All publicly available polling shows the same. If Andy drops out of the race, a large part of the broad coalition he attracts will vote for Jeremy. If Yvette is knocked out, her support firmly swings behind Andy.

We will all have our views about the different candidates, but the real choice for our country is between a Labour government and the ongoing rightwing agenda of the Tories.

I am in politics to make a real difference to the lives of my constituents. We are all in the Labour movement to get behind the beliefs that unite all in our party.

In the crucial choice we are making right now, I have no doubt that a vote for Jeremy would be the wrong choice – throwing away the next election, and with it hope for the next decade.

A vote for Yvette gets the same result – her defeat by Jeremy, and Jeremy's defeat to Cameron and Osborne.

In the crucial choice between Yvette and Andy, Andy will get my second preference so we can have the best hope of keeping the fight for our party alive, and the best hope for the future of our country too.

Tom Blenkinsop is the Labour MP for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland