Credibility is Labour leader’s hygiene factor

New leader needs to convince people that the deficit was not mismanagement but a way of avoiding a d

Pat McFadden MP was absolutely right to argue today that if Labour only opposes cuts there is a "danger of being tuned out by the electorate". But in many ways, the electorate has tuned Labour out already and the challenge is to tune it back in.

Being credible on the deficit is now a hygiene factor for Labour's next leader. All the candidates, and Labour's frontbenchers, are leading opposition to the unfairness of the Budget and the cuts to come in October's Spending Review. This is politically necessary, but not politically sufficient. Labour will get elected again, not on the determination of its opposition, but on the credibility of its alternative.

The perceived wisdom of the 1992 shadow Budget is that setting out proposals in opposition for necessary tax rises -- or indeed, spending cuts -- is political suicide. But it was a significant move this week from Ed Balls that started this debate, after he told the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg that it was a "mistake" for Labour to promise to halve the deficit in four years.

It was a major scoop for her, but did he mean to go public with this view? He hasn't yet said what his alternative would be and so has left himself a credibility gap for the other candidates to probe at the next hustings, in London this Friday.

The dilemma remains: how does Labour prove credibility without being explicit about either alternative cuts or tax rises? It almost certainly can't be done.

At the end of last week, Ed Miliband said Labour shouldn't be locked into the 2:1 ratio for cuts and tax rises, as stated in Labour's manifesto. He said the new leader should outline cuts by the time of October's Spending Review and suggested that tax rises play a bigger role. Andy Burnham has since joined the call for more tax rises and has been bold and consistent in arguing that raising the NHS budget while cutting the social care budget is a mistake.

These are more forward-looking attempts at gaining distinction and they do help move Labour on from what felt, at the time, like a credible deficit reduction plan on page 6 of Labour's manifesto. Page 6 was the core script for all Labour spokespeople during the election, and in interview after interview, Ed Balls and others made it sound credible. Having lost an election so dominated by the Tory campaign against a National Insurance rise, Labour now needs a new deficit reduction plan that is not politically tarnished.

David Miliband has suggested doubling the banking levy and introducing a "mansion tax". Ed Balls would start the 50p income-tax rise at £100,000 and Ed Miliband would make it permanent. Yet all the candidates are struggling for credibility, because these tax rises don't add up to the spending cuts they are seeking to prevent and the VAT hike they voted against last night. Demos has costed an alternative, but it is not the only option.

McFadden is right that the Tories and Lib Dems want Labour to "retreat to its comfort zone" so that they can argue Labour is responsible for the deficit and that "they alone are capable of facing up to Britain's problems".

Labour's next leader needs to win two arguments at the same time. The first is that the deficit was not mismanagement, but a decision taken to prevent recession turning to depression. The second is that Labour's new leader can now be trusted to reduce it. The public will not accept one without the other.

Richard Darlington is head of the Open Left project at Demos.

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

Richard Darlington is Head of News at IPPR. Follow him on Twitter @RDarlo.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Why Prince Charles and Princess Anne are both wrong on GM foods

The latest tiff between toffs gives plenty of food for thought.

I don’t have siblings, so I was weirdly curious as a kid about friends who did, especially when they argued (which was often). One thing I noticed was the importance of superlatives: of being the best child, the most right, and the first to have been wronged. And it turns out things are no different for the Royals.

You might think selective breeding would be a subject on which Prince Charles and Princess Anne would share common ground, but when it comes to genetically modified crops they have very different opinions.

According to Princess Anne, the UK should ditch its concerns about GM and give the technology the green light. In an interview to be broadcast on Radio 4’s Farming Today, she said would be keen to raise both modified crops and livestock on her own land.

“Most of us would argue we have been genetically modifying food since man started to be agrarian,” she said (rallying the old first-is-best argument to her cause). She also argued that the practice can help reduce the price of our food and improve the lives of animals - and “suspects” that there are not many downsides.

Unfortunately for Princess Anne, her Royal “us” does not include her brother Charles, who thinks that GM is The Worst.

In 2008, he warned that genetically engineered food “will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time.”  Supporting such a path would risk handing control of our food-chain to giant corporations, he warned -  leading to “absolute disaster” and “unmentionable awfulness” and “the absolute destruction of everything”.

Normally such a spat could be written off as a toff-tiff. But with Brexit looming, a change to our present ban on growing GM crops commercially looks ever more likely.

In this light, the need to swap rhetoric for reason is urgent. And the most useful anti-GM argument might instead be that offered by the United Nations’ cold, hard data on crop yields.

Analysis by the New York Times shows that, in comparison to Europe, the United States and Canada have “gained no discernible advantages” from their use of GM (in terms of food per acre). Not only this, but herbicide use in the US has increased rather than fallen.

In sum: let's swap superlatives and speculation for sense.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.