George Osborne stands on the brink of failing one of his golden fiscal rules

Autumn Statement wishlist.

With borrowing up, growth negligible for the last two years and rising under-employment highlighting the fragility of the labour market, the economic outlook facing the Chancellor is bleak.

He stands on the brink of failing one of his golden fiscal rules – having debt fall as a proportion of GDP by 2015. The narrative up to now has been whether he can still meet this rule. But this ignores the far bigger issue that it is one of the main causes of the UK’s economic problems.

So rather than fudge the figures to appease the deficit hawks on his backbenches, the Chancellor should abandon his beloved fiscal target that he’s going to miss anyway.

This would mean no longer needing to make another £10bn raid on the welfare budget. Freezing and cutting benefits will life harder for families living – and working – in poverty. And the cuts will not help a single person back into work.

Most importantly, abandoning his self-defeating austerity targets will allow the Chancellor to start again with a fresh plan for growth.

This new plan should include a new State Investment Bank that can help fill the credit void left by our failing banking sector. The Chancellor could also reassert the government’s green credentials by giving the Green Investment Bank powers to borrow.

Capital spending cuts should be cancelled and replaced by more infrastructure investment. Modernising our transport network and energy needs can help deliver high-quality skilled jobs in the short-term and provide longer-term economic gains.

The Chancellor says that reducing the deficit is the biggest challenge the government faces. It is not. Preventing a lost decade of economic stagnation is our biggest challenge. And unless we tackle this by starting a new plan focused on generating jobs and growth we will never get to grips with the public finances.

Frances O’Grady is the TUC General Secretary Designate.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.