Miliband can't keep dodging the borrowing question

The Labour leader's World At One interview showed why he should make the explicit case for a short-term increase in borrowing.

Every time that Labour attacks George Osborne for planning to borrow £245bn more than planned, the Tory rejoinder comes, "but you would borrow even more!" Asked today on The World At One whether he would do so, Ed Miliband replied: "I don't accept that borrowing would be higher under a Labour government", arguing that higher growth would mean a lower deficit. But he later added that borrowing would be lower "in the medium term", leaving open the question of whether it would be lower in the short term. 

The answer, of course, is that the deficit would likely be higher in the short term as Labour borrows to fund its five-point stimulus for jobs and growth. But when pressed by Martha Kearney on how the party would meet the £12.5bn cost of a temporary cut in VAT (one of the five policies), Miliband dodged the question and replied: "the whole point about a VAT cut is that it would get growth moving and if you get growth moving you get more tax revenue in". On that point, he is almost certainly correct, which is why Labour can reasonably claim that borrowing would be lower in the medium term. But that doesn't resolve the issue of borrowing in the short-term. 

At some point before the election, and sooner rather than later, Labour will need to decide whether it is prepared to make the explicit Keynesian case for a deficit-financed stimulus. Without declaring that it would borrow for growth (and explaining why), the party merely reinforces the impression that borrowing is always and everywhere an economic ill.

In a radio interview, Miliband can just about get away with an answer as evasive as the one he supplied. But in an election debate with David Cameron, he will not be able to dodge the question of whether Labour would borrow more in the short-term. In which case, Miliband and Ed Balls should prepare a convincing answer now. 

Ed Miliband speaks at the CBI's annual conference on November 19, 2012 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Could Jeremy Corbyn still be excluded from the leadership race? The High Court will rule today

Labour donor Michael Foster has applied for a judgement. 

If you thought Labour's National Executive Committee's decision to let Jeremy Corbyn automatically run again for leader was the end of it, think again. 

Today, the High Court will decide whether the NEC made the right judgement - or if Corbyn should have been forced to seek nominations from 51 MPs, which would effectively block him from the ballot.

The legal challenge is brought by Michael Foster, a Labour donor and former parliamentary candidate. Corbyn is listed as one of the defendants.

Before the NEC decision, both Corbyn's team and the rebel MPs sought legal advice.

Foster has maintained he is simply seeking the views of experts. 

Nevertheless, he has clashed with Corbyn before. He heckled the Labour leader, whose party has been racked with anti-Semitism scandals, at a Labour Friends of Israel event in September 2015, where he demanded: "Say the word Israel."

But should the judge decide in favour of Foster, would the Labour leadership challenge really be over?

Dr Peter Catterall, a reader in history at Westminster University and a specialist in opposition studies, doesn't think so. He said: "The Labour party is a private institution, so unless they are actually breaking the law, it seems to me it is about how you interpret the rules of the party."

Corbyn's bid to be personally mentioned on the ballot paper was a smart move, he said, and the High Court's decision is unlikely to heal wounds.

 "You have to ask yourself, what is the point of doing this? What does success look like?" he said. "Will it simply reinforce the idea that Mr Corbyn is being made a martyr by people who are out to get him?"