Leader: The new realism

The challenge is to build, within those constraints, a project that is distinct from the coalition’s offer of slow immiseration for the many and impunity for the few.

Ed Miliband and Ed Balls have been forced to acknowledge their tricky position on the wrong side of public opinion on two vital questions. On the economy, there is suspicion that excessive spending by the last government is the cause of current misery. On welfare, many voters think that Labour presided over a system that rewarded idleness.

The challenge for the party leadership is to recognise the public mood without accepting so much blame as to do the Tories’ work for them. In co-ordinated speeches, the two Eds have set about that task. Mr Balls has clarified his approach to the public finances in the light of bleak forecasts. He does not envisage a future Labour government spending more in its early years than the coalition plans to do. Meanwhile, Mr Miliband has set out new ideas about social security that emphasise the link between contributions paid in and benefits paid out. This is to address the charge that the system doles out “something for nothing”. Labour has also accepted that the total welfare spend will have to be capped and that certain coalition cuts – say, to child benefit – would not be reversed.

One concern is that making benefits more conditional than universal is an intellectual surrender to enemies of the welfare state. There is also anxiety that oaths of fiscal discipline are a conversion to Conservative economics.

Those concerns can be assuaged. The principle of universal welfare does not dissolve in targeted cuts. The greater threat is a decline in the perceived legitimacy of taxpayer-funded benefits, a process that is accelerated if Labour cannot articulate voters’ concerns. Likewise, Labour cannot credibly offer an alternative to the coalition without acknowledging fiscal constraints.

The challenge is to build, within those constraints, a project that is distinct from the coalition’s offer of slow immiseration for the many and impunity for the few.

Labour’s new realism about spending limits is a necessary step towards winning over sceptical voters – but if it represents the limits of its imagination as it attempts to create a new political consensus, then the party is in trouble.

This article first appeared in the 10 June 2013 issue of the New Statesman, G0

New Statesman
Show Hide image

Quiz: Can you identify fake news?

The furore around "fake" news shows no sign of abating. Can you spot what's real and what's not?

Hillary Clinton has spoken out today to warn about the fake news epidemic sweeping the world. Clinton went as far as to say that "lives are at risk" from fake news, the day after Pope Francis compared reading fake news to eating poop. (Side note: with real news like that, who needs the fake stuff?)

The sweeping distrust in fake news has caused some confusion, however, as many are unsure about how to actually tell the reals and the fakes apart. Short from seeing whether the logo will scratch off and asking the man from the market where he got it from, how can you really identify fake news? Take our test to see whether you have all the answers.



In all seriousness, many claim that identifying fake news is a simple matter of checking the source and disbelieving anything "too good to be true". Unfortunately, however, fake news outlets post real stories too, and real news outlets often slip up and publish the fakes. Use fact-checking websites like Snopes to really get to the bottom of a story, and always do a quick Google before you share anything. 

Amelia Tait is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman.