The left must beware of excessive pessimism

The search for economic realism and credibility can easily tip into fatalism.

The task for a Labour government elected in 2015 will be a tough one. The debt and deficit will still be high and so one, old, conception of social democracy, of spending more money, will not be available and new approaches will be needed.  My former Downing Street colleagues Nick Pearce and Gavin Kelly gave a typically thorough and sensible version of that in a recent article. But there are a number of reasons why we must not take that too far.

First, Labour has to win the next election. And that means finding a strategy that has realism running through it but that also has the uplifting sense of optimism.  Yes, economic credibility is crucial but telling people that if they vote for us, things will be a bit less bad than under the other lot, will never do for social democrats. Even when we are forced to be modest in our offer in the short-term, we must hold up a better Britain for the future. If the only choice is cuts, some people will shrug and say "better the devil we know".

The big danger is not of Labour being punished for being unclear on its priorities for spending cuts, but that it may still be held responsible for having presided over economic collapse. Being macho on cuts is not an answer to that.  The clamour from commentators arguing that Labour must be exact on what it would cut is an issue to be managed, not to build a strategy around.

We do not even know what the economic situation will be.  A possible scenario is that, by 2015, we are starting to have a little growth but how quickly the deficit and debt will come down when and if UK and EU growth kicks in is very hard to say. Economists are hopeless at forecasting this sort of thing but historically tend to severely underestimate how quickly deficits rise in a recession and how fast they fall in an upturn.

The search for realism and credibility can easily tip into fatalism. Over time the deficit needs to come down but we have some time to play with. Markets are not itching to punish the UK for not cutting hard enough – as even the IMF now agrees - especially if the spending we are making is clearly investment spend with good supply side and "preventative" features (that reduces spend in the future).

Another area where fatalism can take hold is on the ageing society. Of course there will be strains, but analysis of the OBR long term fiscal sustainability forecasts makes clear that things are not that grim, that much of the problem is about health productivity as much as the age profile of the population.

Growth and how we get it going is the number one thing to talk about. We must avoid transforming from being social democrats who too often only wanted to talk about spend and not how to create wealth, into social democrats who only talk about how to cut.  Going forward, the route to growth must be about investment, competition policy, industrial and labour market policy.

In many ways the awkwardly titled ‘pre-distribution’ debate should get us talking about growth and the structure of our economy.  It is clearly right to say that life would be much easier for social democrats if household incomes from market wages were more equal and so traditional redistribution did not have to do so much work. However, a number of the options put forward are not only rather small but are in fact about redistribution and not about changing the structure of industry.

Putting aside issues of employment, a more universal living wage would be useful (especially for the public sector and contracted out services) and getting more mums back to work to balance up household incomes in the lower deciles is an important policy goal. But policies like that  do not really address the major problem of Britain having far too many people employed in firms and sectors that have a low wage, low skills  approach to their activity. The task now is to take advantage of the mood in the country today to search for bolder approaches and not be so critical of redistribution itself that we forget that we will always need it as an important tool in our armoury.

None of this means that tough decisions can or should be avoided on tax and spending. I would be surprised if Labour did not have to embrace more or less whatever the government has said on spending plans for at least the first year or two of a new Parliament, much as it did in 1997. This makes political sense but is also practical since it is very hard to understand where the manoeuvre room is until you are in power. 

We, as social democrats, need to widen the conversation way beyond spending (and tax) to a whole set of other issues that deliver for Britain.

One is to do with getting regulation right so that banks, utilities and other companies act in ways that are more favourable to the national good and to equity. Corporate governance and competition reform come into this category, changing the way that people experience markets and promoting social responsibility.

There are issues at local level and the reclaiming civil society.  Public spending will play a smaller role in the next period than it has in the last decade or two. Yet unlike the right, that sees this as a chance to contract out to for-profit providers, the centre-left can draw on its history of self-help, mutualism and voluntary action to make sure communities are cohesive, support each other and do so in fair ways that avoid total post-code lotteries.

These are some ways of both delivering growth and getting pre-distribution better that get us towards values and keep us away from spend (or tax). These sort of ideas need to have as much prominence in any debates on growth and fairness, as supposing that the answer to our industrial and economic issues will revolve around  more childcare, valuable as that would be.

I am not a tax and spend social democrat: far from it. But I have seen debates of doom and gloom take over the centre–left before.  This gloomy introspection is a dead-end.  Instead we have to focus on growth and the re-creation of hope. Realism yes, but let’s keep our nerve, optimism and our political sense too.

Dan Corry worked for the Labour Party 1989-92, was a Special Adviser in various departments during most of the Labour Government years, including Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers in the Treasury 2006-7 and Senior Economic Adviser to the PM 2007-2010.

Ed Miliband addresses TUC members in Hyde Park at the end of a march in protest against the government's austerity measures. Photograph: Getty Images.
Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

What's to be done about racial inequality?

David Cameron's words on equal opportunities are to be welcomed - now for some action, says Sunder Katwala.

David Cameron made the strongest, clearest and most high profile statement about ethnic inequalities and the need to tackle discrimination ever yet offered by a British Prime Minister in his leader’s speech to the Conservative Party conference in Manchester.
“Picture this. You’ve graduated with a good degree. You send out your CV far and wide. But you get rejection after rejection. What’s wrong? It’s not the qualifications or the previous experience. It’s just two words at the top: first name, surname. Do you know that in our country today: even if they have exactly the same qualifications, people with white-sounding names are nearly twice as likely to get call backs for jobs than people with ethnic-sounding names? … That, in 21st century Britain, is disgraceful. We can talk all we want about opportunity, but it’s meaningless unless people are really judged equally”, said Cameron.
While the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, this was a powerfully argued Prime Ministerial intervention – and a particularly well-timed one, for three reasons.

Firstly, the Prime Minister was able to root his case in an all-but-universally accepted appeal for equal opportunities. It will always prove more difficult in practice to put political energy and resources behind efforts to remedy discrimination against a minority of the population unless a convincing fairness case is made that values cherished across our whole society are at stake. Cameron’s argument, that any party which tells itself that it is the party of the ‘fair chance’ and ‘the equal shot’ must have a response when there is such clear evidence of discrimination, should prove persuasive to a Conservative Party that has not seen race inequalities as its natural territory. Cameron argued that the same principles should animate responses to discrimination when it comes to race, gender and social class. Put like that, wanting job interviews to be fair – by eradicating conscious and unconscious patterns of bias wherever possible – would strike most Britons as offering as clear a case of the values of fair play as wanting the best baker to win the Great British Bake-Off on television.
Secondly, Cameron’s intervention comes at a potential "tipping point" moment for fair opportunities across ethnic groups. Traditionally, ethnic discrimination has been discussed primarily through the lens of its impact on the most marginalised. Certainly, persistent gaps in the criminal justice system, mental health provision and unemployment rates remain stark for some minority groups. What has been less noticed is the emergence of a much more complex pattern of opportunity and disadvantage – not least as a consequence of significant ethnic minority progress.

Most strikingly of all, in educational outcomes, historic attainment gaps between ethnic minorities and their white British peers have disappeared over the last decade. In the aggregate, ethnic minorities get better GCSE results on average. Ethnic minority Britons are more likely, not less likely, to be university graduates than their fellow citizens. 

As a result of that progress, Cameron’s intervention comes at a moment of significant potential – but significant risk too. Britain’s ethnic minorities are the youngest and fastest-growing sections of British society. If that educational progress translates into economic success, it will make a significant contribution to the "Great British Take-Off" that the Prime Minister envisions. But if that does not happen, with educational convergence combined with current ‘ethnic penalties’ in employment and income persisting, then that potential could well curdle into frustration that the British promise of equal opportunities is not being kept.  Cameron also mirrored his own language in committing himself to both a ‘fight against extremism’ and a ‘fight against discrimination’: while those are distinct challenges and causes, actively pursuing both tracks simultaneously has the potential, at least, depolarise some debates about responses to extremism  - and so to help deepen the broad social coalitions we need for a more cohesive society too.

Thirdly, Cameron’s challenge could mark an important deepening in the political competition between the major parties on race issues. Many have been struck by the increase in political attention on the centre-right to race issues over the last five to ten years. The focus has been on the politics of representation. By increasing the number of non-white Conservative MPs from two to seventeen since 2005, Cameron has sent a powerful signal that Labour’s traditional claim to be ‘the party of ethnic minorities’ would now be contested. Cameron was again able to celebrate in Manchester several ways in which his Cabinet and Parliamentary benches demonstrate many successful journeys of migrant and minority integration in British society. That might perhaps help to ease the fears, about integration being impossible in an era of higher immigration, which the Home Secretary had articulated the previous day.

So symbolism can matter. But facial diversity is not enough. The politics of ethnic minority opportunity needs to be about more than visits to gurdwaras, diversity nights at the party conference fringes and unveiling statues of Mahatma Gandhi in Parliament Square. Jeremy Corbyn’s first speech as Labour leader did include one brief celebratory reference to Britain’s ethnic diversity – “as I travelled the country during the leadership campaign it was wonderful to see the diversity of all the people in our country” – and to Labour bringing in more black, Asian and ethnic minority members - but it did not include any substantial content on discrimination. Tim Farron acknowledged during his leadership campaign that the Liberal Democrats have struggled to get to the starting-line on race and diversity at all. The opposition parties too will no doubt now be challenged to match not just the Prime Minister’s rhetorical commitment to challenging inequalities but also to propose how it could be done in practice.

Non-white Britons expect substance, not just symbolism from all of the parties on race inequalites.  Survation’s large survey of ethnic minority voters for British Future showed the Conservatives winning more ethnic minority support than ever before – but just 29 per cent of non-white respondents were confident that the Conservatives are committed to treating people of every ethnic background equally, while 54 per cent said this of Labour. Respondents were twice as likely to say that the Conservatives needto do more to reach out – and the Prime Minister would seem to be committed to showing that he has got that message.  Moreover, there is evidence that ethnic inclusion could be important in broadening a party’s appeal to other younger, urban and more liberal white voters too – which is why it made sense for this issue to form part of a broader attempt by David Cameron to colonise the broad centre of British politics in his Manchester speech.

But the case for caution is that there has been limited policy attention to ethnic inequalities under the last two governments. Restaurateur Iqbal Wahhab decided to give up his role chairing an ethnic minority taskforce for successive governments, unconvinced there was a political commitment to do much more than convene a talking shop. Lib Dem equalities minister Lynne Featherstone did push the CV discrimination issue – but many Conservatives were sceptical. Cameron’s new commitment may face similar challenges from those whose instinct is to worry that more attention to discrimination or bias in the jobs market will mean more red tape for business.

Labour had a separate race inequalities manifesto in 2015, outside of its main election manifesto, while the Conservative manifesto did not contain significant commitments to racial inequality. The mid-campaign launch in Croydon of a series of race equality pledges showed an increasing awareness of the growing importance of ethnic minority votes - though the fact that they all involved aiming for increases of 20 per cent by 2020 gave them a slightly back-of-the-envelope feel. 

Prime Ministerial commitments have an important agenda-setting function. A generation ago the Stephen Lawrence case opened the eyes of middle England to racist violence and police failures, particularly through the Daily Mail’s persistent challenging of those injustices. A Conservative Prime Minister’s words could similarly make a big difference in the mainstreaming of the issue of inequalities of opportunity. What action should follow words? Between now and next year’s party conference season, that must will now be the test for this Conservative government – and for their political opponents too. 

Sunder Katwala is director of British Future and former general secretary of the Fabian Society.