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.
Getty
Show Hide image

MPs Seema Malhotra and Stephen Kinnock lay out a 6-point plan for Brexit:

Time for Theresa May to lay out her priorities and explain exactly what “Brexit means Brexit” really means.

Angela Merkel has called on Theresa May to “take her time” and “take a moment to identify Britain’s interests” before invoking Article 50. We know that is code for the “clock is ticking” and also that we hardly have any idea what the Prime Minister means by “Brexit means Brexit.”

We have no time to lose to seek to safeguard what is best in from our membership of the European Union. We also need to face some uncomfortable truths.

Yes, as remain campaigners we were incredibly disappointed by the result. However we also recognise the need to move forward with the strongest possible team to negotiate the best deal for Britain and maintain positive relationships with our nearest neighbours and allies. 
 
The first step will be to define what is meant by 'the best possible deal'. This needs to be a settlement that balances the economic imperative of access to the single market and access to skills with the political imperative to respond to the level of public opinion to reduce immigration from the EU. A significant proportion of people who voted Leave on 23 June did so due to concerns about immigration. We must now acknowledge the need to review and reform. 

We know that the single market is founded upon the so-called "four freedoms", namely the free movement of goods, capital, services and people & labour. As things stand, membership of the single market is on an all-or-nothing basis. 

We believe a focus for negotiations should be reforms to how the how the single market works. This should address how the movement of people and labour across the EU can exist alongside options for greater controls on immigration for EU states. 

We believe that there is an appetite for such reforms amongst a number of EU governments, and that it is essential for keeping public confidence in how well the EU is working.

So what should Britain’s priorities be? There are six vital principles that the three Cabinet Brexit Ministers should support now:

1. The UK should remain in the single market, to the greatest possible extent.

This is essential for our future prosperity as a country. A large proportion of the £17 billion of foreign direct investment that comes into the UK every year is linked to our tariff-free access to a market of 500 million consumers. 

Rather than seeking to strike a "package deal" across all four freedoms, we should instead sequence our approach, starting with an EU-wide review of the freedom of movement of people and labour. This review should explore whether the current system provides the right balance between consistency and flexibility for member states. Indeed, for the UK this should also address the issue of better registration of EU nationals in line with other nations and enforcement of existing rules. 

If we can secure a new EU-wide system for the movement of people and labour, we should then seek to retain full access to the free movement of goods, capital and services. This is not just in our interests, but in the interests of the EU. For other nation states to play hardball with Britain after we have grappled first with the complexity of the immigration debate would be to ignore rather than act early to address an issue that could eventually lead to the end of the EU as we know it.

2. In order to retain access to the single market we believe that it will be necessary to make a contribution to the EU budget.

Norway, not an EU member but with a high degree of access to the single market, makes approximately the same per capita contribution to the EU budget as the UK currently does. We must be realistic in our approach to this issue, and we insist that those who campaigned for Leave must now level with the British people. They must accept that if the British government wishes to retain access to the single market then it must make a contribution to the EU budget.

3. The UK should establish an immigration policy which is seen as fair, demonstrates that we remain a country that is open for business, and at the same time preventing unscrupulous firms from undercutting British workers by importing cheap foreign labour.  

We also need urgent confirmation that EU nationals who were settled here before the referendum as a minimum are guaranteed the right to remain, and that the same reassurance is urgently sought for Britons living in mainland Europe. The status of foreign students from the EU at our universities must be also be clarified and a strong message sent that they are welcomed and valued. 

4. The UK should protect its financial services industry, including passporting rights, vital to our national prosperity, while ensuring that the high standards of transparency and accountability agreed at an EU level are adhered to, alongside tough new rules against tax evasion and avoidance. In addition, our relationship with the European Investment Bank should continue. Industry should have the confidence that it is business as usual.

5. The UK should continue to shadow the EU’s employment legislation. People were promised that workers’ rights would be protected in a post-Brexit Britain. We need to make sure that we do not have weaker employment legislation than the rest of Europe.

6. The UK should continue to shadow the EU’s environmental legislation.

As with workers’ rights, we were promised that this too would be protected post-Brexit.  We must make sure we do not have weaker legislation on protecting the environment and combatting climate change. We must not become the weak link in Europe.

Finally, it is vital that the voice of Parliament and is heard, loud and clear. In a letter to the Prime Minister we called for new joint structures – a Special Parliamentary Committee - involving both Houses to be set up by October alongside the establishment of the new Brexit unit. There must be a clear role for opposition parties. It will be equally important to ensure that both Remain and Leave voices are represented and with clearly agreed advisory and scrutiny roles for parliament. Representation should be in the public domain, as with Select Committees.

However, it is also clear there will be a need for confidentiality, particularly when sensitive negotiating positions are being examined by the committee. 

We call for the establishment of a special vehicle – a Conference or National Convention to facilitate broader engagement of Parliament with MEPs, business organisations, the TUC, universities, elected Mayors, local government and devolved administrations. 

The UK’s exit from the EU has dominated the political and economic landscape since 23 June, and it will continue to do so for many years to come. It is essential that we enter into these negotiations with a clear plan. There can be no cutting of corners, and no half-baked proposals masquerading as "good old British pragmatism". 

The stakes are far too high for that.