Labour's "economic credibility" problem

Everyone agrees that the party needs to spell out a clear alternative to the coalition's cuts -- so

As Labour gears up for its annual conference, the focus is, predictably, on the economy - namely, how the party can win back the public's trust. Growth may be but a distant dream, while unemployment figures offer no comfort, but the coalition's relentless message that "Labour got us into this mess" seems to have got through to the public.

The most effective line in Nick Clegg's speech to the Liberal Democrats' conference last week was when he hit back at Ed Balls' claim that the coalitions' cuts were "too far, too fast", by saying that Labour would have done "too little, too late."

The latest Guardian/ICM poll shows that only 34 per cent of voters think Labour has the right policies to rescue the economy. Even among definite Labour voters, only 66 per cent back the party's economic plans. This is despite other polls consistently showing that the public is nervous about the speed and scale of the governments' austerity measures.

What this shows is that it is not enough to point out that the economy is stalling: Labour must offer a detailed, solid plan about exactly what they would do differently.

This is a point made by Balls himself today. Discussing ways of winning back credibility in today's Guardian, he writes:

Families are not asking: "Who was right on the pace of deficit reduction?" They are asking: "Who can get Britain back on its feet?" I believe we can only win public trust by making the case for a credible and compelling plan that will revive growth, get unemployment falling, take the tough decisions to tackle the deficit in a balanced way, and transform our economy for the long term.

A new report (£) by the Fabians reiterates this point:

Saying we would cut, but not by quite as much, or that we will cut by some undetermined amount some time in the future, is not sufficient.

Everyone is agreed that Labour must produce an alternative plan to win back credibility. But this is hardly a new issue; the economy has been the dominant issue for the duration of this government and before. There is certainly a strong argument for not rushing such an important policy, but Miliband has now led the party for a full year. Labour should publish specific plans soon, and get the message out to the public. As we face the prospect of a renewed global economic crisis, there is a political opportunity for Labour -- but only if it presents a consistent, credible line tied to a concrete policy. If it waits too much longer, it may well be "too little, too late" to win back their credibility.

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Scotland's vast deficit remains an obstacle to independence

Though the country's financial position has improved, independence would still risk severe austerity. 

For the SNP, the annual Scottish public spending figures bring good and bad news. The good news, such as it is, is that Scotland's deficit fell by £1.3bn in 2016/17. The bad news is that it remains £13.3bn or 8.3 per cent of GDP – three times the UK figure of 2.4 per cent (£46.2bn) and vastly higher than the white paper's worst case scenario of £5.5bn. 

These figures, it's important to note, include Scotland's geographic share of North Sea oil and gas revenue. The "oil bonus" that the SNP once boasted of has withered since the collapse in commodity prices. Though revenue rose from £56m the previous year to £208m, this remains a fraction of the £8bn recorded in 2011/12. Total public sector revenue was £312 per person below the UK average, while expenditure was £1,437 higher. Though the SNP is playing down the figures as "a snapshot", the white paper unambiguously stated: "GERS [Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland] is the authoritative publication on Scotland’s public finances". 

As before, Nicola Sturgeon has warned of the threat posed by Brexit to the Scottish economy. But the country's black hole means the risks of independence remain immense. As a new state, Scotland would be forced to pay a premium on its debt, resulting in an even greater fiscal gap. Were it to use the pound without permission, with no independent central bank and no lender of last resort, borrowing costs would rise still further. To offset a Greek-style crisis, Scotland would be forced to impose dramatic austerity. 

Sturgeon is undoubtedly right to warn of the risks of Brexit (particularly of the "hard" variety). But for a large number of Scots, this is merely cause to avoid the added turmoil of independence. Though eventual EU membership would benefit Scotland, its UK trade is worth four times as much as that with Europe. 

Of course, for a true nationalist, economics is irrelevant. Independence is a good in itself and sovereignty always trumps prosperity (a point on which Scottish nationalists align with English Brexiteers). But if Scotland is to ever depart the UK, the SNP will need to win over pragmatists, too. In that quest, Scotland's deficit remains a vast obstacle. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.