Leaks on cuts will be punished

Ministers could be hit with further budget cuts if they release early details of their department's

Ministers could be punished for leaking early details of spending cuts with last-minute changes to their budgets, the Financial Times has reported.

With the party conference season about to get underway in earnest, Cameron clearly doesn't want speculation about cuts to distract from the Tories' first conference in government for 13 years, and is planning to use the threat of imposed spending cuts to keep his ministers on message during this period. Control will even extend to the conference itself, the FT reports:

"One senior government official said the Treasury would be vetting all ministerial conference speeches to avoid any hint of new spending commitments."

Provisional deals are already in place for some departments ahead of the announcement of the comprehensive spending review on October 20, but David Cameron is said to be anxious to reveal the spending cuts as a complete package, rather than have different elements leak out at different times, dominating the news cycle and distorting the image he wants to present.

The news that the information will be quite so tightly controlled seems to confirm that Cameron is more than a little concerned about the potential ramifications if the cuts are presented the "wrong" way. Ahead of the AV referendum and the local elections next year, the spending review will be the first major test for the unity of the coalition. David Cameron and George Osborne need to prove to the electorate that their cuts are necessary for recovery, not merely ideological, while Nick Clegg has to keep the left of his party convinced that their interests are served by lending their support. And as my colleague George Eaton pointed out yesterday, opposition to the cuts is gathering momentum on several fronts already, and any leaks of the "outline settlements" currently being negotiated would only fuel this movement further.

Leaking details of departmental proposals to the press used to be a tried and tested way for ministers to try and circumvent the Treasury in securing funding (as immortalised in the first ever episode of The Thick of It). But the FT's "senior government official" warns that this trick won't work this time because Cameron and Osborne are "completely united" on this. So, if any leaks are made over the next few weeks, we'll know it has nothing to do with trying to preserve departmental budgets, and everything to do with personal rebellion against the coalition's leaders.

Caroline Crampton is assistant editor of the New Statesman. She writes a weekly podcast column.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Labour will soon be forced to make clear its stance on Brexit

The Great Repeal Bill will force the party to make a choice on who has the final say on a deal withg Europe.

A Party Manifesto has many functions. But rarely is it called upon to paper over the cracks between a party and its supporters. But Labour’s was – between its Eurosceptic leadership and its pro-EU support base. Bad news for those who prefer their political parties to face at any given moment in only one direction. But a forthcoming parliamentary vote will force the party to make its position clear.

The piece of legislation that makes us members of the EU is the European Communities Act 1972. “Very soon” – says the House of Commons Library – we will see a Repeal Bill that will, according to the Queen’s Speech, “repeal the European Communities Act.” It will be repealed, says the White Paper for the Repeal Bill, “on the day we leave the EU.”

It will contain a clause stating that the bit of the bill that repeals the European Communities Act will come into force on a date of the Prime Minister's choosing. But MPs will have to choose whether to vote for that clause. And this is where Labour’s dilemma comes into play.

In her Lancaster House speech Theresa May said:

“I can confirm today that the Government will put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament, before it comes into force.”

Later that day David Davis clarified May’s position, saying, of a vote against the final deal:

“The referendum last year set in motion a circumstance where the UK is going to leave the European Union, and it won’t change that.” 

So. The choice the Tories will give to Parliament is between accepting whatever deal is negotiated or leaving without a deal. Not a meaningful choice at all given that (as even Hammond now accepts): “No deal would be a very, very bad outcome for Britain.”

But what about Labour’s position? Labour’s Manifesto says:

“Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option.”

So, it has taken that option off the table. But it also says:

“A Labour approach to Brexit also means legislating to guarantee that Parliament has a truly meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal (my emphasis).”

Most Brexit commentators would read that phrase – a meaningful vote – as drawing an implicit contrast with the meaningless vote offered by Theresa May at Lancaster House. They read it, in other words, as a vote between accepting the final deal or remaining in the EU.

But even were they wrong, the consequence of Labour taking “no deal” off the table is that there are only two options: leaving on the terms of the deal or remaining. Labour’s Manifesto explicitly guarantees that choice to Parliament. And guarantees it at a time when the final deal is known.

But here’s the thing. If Parliament chooses to allow Theresa May to repeal the European Communities Act when she wants, Parliament is depriving itself of a choice when the result of the deal is known. It is depriving itself of the vote Labour’s Manifesto promises. And not only that - by handing over to the Prime Minister the decision whether to repeal the European Communities Act, Parliament is voluntarily depriving itself of the power to supervise the Brexit negotiations. Theresa May will be able to repeat the Act whatever the outcome of those negotiations. She won’t be accountable to Parliament for the result of her negotiations – and so Parliament will have deprived itself of the ability to control them. A weakened Prime Minister, without a mandate, will have taken back control. But our elected Parliament will not.

If Labour wants to make good on its manifesto promise, if Labour wants to control the shape of Brexit, it must vote against that provision of the Repeal Bill.

That doesn’t put Labour in the position of ignoring the referendum vote. There will be ample time, from October next year when the final deal is known, for Labour to look at the Final Deal and have a meaningful vote on it.

But if Labour supports the Repeal Bill it will be breaching a clear manifesto promise.

Jolyon Maugham is a barrister who advised Ed Miliband on tax policy. He blogs at Waiting for Tax, and writes for the NS on tax and legal issues. 

0800 7318496