Obama refuses to endorse Cameron’s deficit plan

US president emphasises the need for investment and says that “every country is different”.

The Tories were desperate for Barack Obama to endorse the coalition's deficit reduction plan, but at today's press conference he didn't even come close. In response to a question on the subject from ITV's Tom Bradby, the US president emphasised that "every country is different" and praised the way that "concerted action" by the UK and the US had "yanked the world economy out of recession" – an implicit endorsement of the last Labour government's fiscal stimulus.

Obama, who noted in his introductory remarks that the pair come from "different political traditions", went on to stress the need to sustain investment in "education, science, technology and infrastructure". For the US president, unlike the coalition, economic growth is a precondition of deficit reduction, not a hoped-for outcome.

It was only towards the end (Obama's answers were incredibly long-winded) that he made a token reference to the need for governments to "live within their means" before adding that the "sequencing and pace" of deficit reduction would be different in each country. It wasn't what Cameron and George Osborne wanted to hear.

The irony is that there are some significant similarities between Obama's deficit reduction plan and the coalition's. As I noted in a recent Data Hound column, under the US president's plan, public-sector borrowing will fall from 10.9 per cent of GDP this year to 3.3 per cent in 2016. The coalition aims to reduce borrowing from 9.9 per cent of GDP this year to 1.5 per cent in 2016.

Thus, although the total fiscal consolidation planned by Osborne remains the largest, the difference is not as great as some imply. In addition, Obama plans to achieve three-quarters of the US deficit reduction through spending cuts, including lower debt interest payments, and the rest through tax rises, in a ratio similar to the coalition's 73:27 split.

But the crucial difference is that while the US economy has grown by 1.2 per cent in the past six months, the UK economy has flatlined. The strength of the US recovery means that Obama can afford to reduce the deficit without fatally weakening growth. The same, alas, cannot be said of Osborne's Britain.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Labour's trajectory points to landslide defeat, but don't bet on a change at the top any time soon

The settled will among Jeremy Corbyn's critics that they need to keep quiet is unlikely to be disrupted by the result. 

Labour were able to tread water against Ukip in Stoke but sank beneath the waves in Copeland, where the Conservatives’ Trudy Harrison won the seat.

In Stoke, a two-point swing away from Labour to the Tories and to Ukip, which if replicated across the country at a general election would mean 15 Conservative gains and would give Theresa May a parliamentary majority of 40.

And in Copeland, a 6.7 per cent swing for Labour to Tory that would see the Conservatives pick up 52 seats from Labour if replicated across the country, giving them a majority of 114.
As the usual trend is for the opposition to decline from its midterm position at a general election, these are not results that indicate Labour will be back in power after the next election.. That holds for Stoke as much as for Copeland.

The last time a governing party won a by-election was 1982 – the overture to a landslide victory. It’s the biggest by-election increase in the vote share of a governing party since 1966 – the prelude to an election in which Harold Wilson increased his majority from 4 to 96.

To put the length of Labour’s dominance in Copeland into perspective: the new Conservative MP was born in 1976. The last Conservative to sit for Copeland, William Nunn, was born in 1879.

It’s a chastening set of results for Ukip, too. The question for them: if they can’t win when Labour is in such difficulties, when will they?

It’s worth noting, too, that whereas in the last parliament, Labour consistently underperformed its poll rating in local elections and by-elections, indicating that the polls were wrong, so far, the results have been in keeping with what the polls suggest. They are understating the Liberal Democrats a little, which is what you’d expect at this stage in the parliament. So anyone looking for comfort in the idea that the polls will be wrong again is going to look a long time. 

Instead, every election and every poll – including the two council elections last night – point in the same direction: the Conservatives have fixed their Ukip problem but acquired a Liberal Democrat one. Labour haven’t fixed their Ukip problem but they’ve acquired a Liberal Democrat one to match.

But that’s just the electoral reality. What about the struggle for political control inside the Labour party?

As I note in my column this week, the settled view of the bulk of Corbyn’s internal critics is that they need to keep quiet and carry on, to let Corbyn fail on its his own terms. That Labour won Stoke but lost Copeland means that consensus is likely to hold.

The group to watch are Labour MPs in what you might call “the 5000 club” – that is, MPs with majorities around the 5000 mark. An outbreak of panic in that group would mean that we were once again on course for a possible leadership bid.

But they will reassure themselves that this result suggests that their interests are better served by keeping quiet at Westminster and pointing at potholes in their constituencies.  After all, Corbyn doesn’t have a long history of opposition to the major employer in their seats.

The other thing to watch from last night: the well-advertised difficulties of the local hospital in West Cumberland were an inadequate defence for Labour in Copeland. Distrust with Labour in the nuclear industry may mean a bigger turnout than we expect from workers in the nuclear industries in the battle to lead Unite, with all the consequences that has for Labour’s future direction.

If you are marking a date in your diary for another eruption of public in-fighting, don’t forget the suggestion from John McDonnell and Diane Abbott that the polls will have turned by the end of the year – because you can be certain that Corbyn’s critics haven’t. But if you are betting on any party leader to lose his job anytime soon, put it on Nuttall, not Corbyn.

 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.