Why Labour has not "surrendered" on public spending

Contrary to what conservatives suggest, Balls hasn't capitulated to Osborne. He supports stimulus now and investment after 2015.

Daniel Finkelstein is the latest fiscal conservative to hail Labour's apparent Damascene conversion to austerity. In today's Times he writes of Ed Balls's alleged "intellectual surrender", "the argument he once boldly made, that deficits don’t matter, has gone". 

Balls's speech last week was a significant moment. Not only did he reaffirm that Labour would have to keep most or all of the coalition's spending cuts, he stated that it would have to make its own (and suggested some too). But Finkelstein is wrong to present this as an epoch-defining capitulation to compare with 1976. 

To begin with, Balls's support for stimulus now remains unwavering. Under the political cover of the IMF, he called for the coalition to bring forward capital spending increases from 2015, "financed by a temporary rise in borrowing", in order to promote growth. Contrary to what Finkelstein suggests (recalling Jim Callaghan's famous words), he still believes that you can "spend your way out of recession". More borrowing, more spending remains the Keynesian remedy  prescribed by Balls. The consistent error of the right has been to equate support for stimulus with support for a larger state. As Balls has always acknowledged, a stimulus is, by definition, temporary. In the words of his hero Keynes, "The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury." The true intellectual surrender would be for Labour to endorse Osborne's strategy of piling cuts on cuts, a path it has rightly rejected. 

But Finkelstein also overstates the extent to which Labour has committed itself to austerity after 2015. For Balls, Osborne's spending limits are a "starting point", not a blueprint. With growth of just 1.1 per cent since 2010 (compared to 2.9 per cent in Germany and 4.9 per cent in the US), he has adopted the prudent stance of preparing for the worst. But should growth surprise on the upside, he will be able to raise the baseline.

Nothing in Balls's speech precluded the possibility of Labour spending significantly more once a genuine recovery is underway. After all, the surge in expenditure under the last government (an average annual increase of 3.4 per cent) only came after Gordon Brown had stuck to the Tories' "eye-wateringly tight" spending limits. In the case of capital spending, Balls has already hinted that Labour will pledge to invest more than Osborne. As he said, "And for the future, we need to invest in the homes, transport and infrastructure Britain needs and ensure a recovery made by the many. Of course, here too we will only set our plans for investing in Britain’s future in the light of the economic circumstances at the time, and the needs of economic growth". 

Last week was not an "intellectual surrender"; it was an attempt to give Labour the political cover to be radical. 

George Osborne and Ed Balls attend the State Opening of Parliament on 8 May, 2013 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

BBC screengrab
Show Hide image

Owen Smith is naïve if he thinks misogynist abuse in Labour started with Jeremy Corbyn

“We didn’t have this sort of abuse before Jeremy Corbyn became the leader.”

Owen Smith, the MP challenging Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour leadership contest, has told BBC News that the party’s nastier side is a result of its leader.

He said:

“I think Jeremy should take a little more responsibility for what’s going on in the Labour party. After all, we didn’t have this sort of abuse and intolerance, misogyny, antisemitism in the Labour party before Jeremy Corbyn became the leader.

“It’s now become something that is being talked about on television, on radio, and in newspapers. And Angela is right, it has been effectively licenced within the last nine months.

“We’re the Labour party. We’ve got to be about fairness, and tolerance, and equality. It’s in our DNA. So for us to be reduced to this infighting is awful. Now, I understand why people feel passionately about the future of our party – I feel passionately about that. I feel we’re in danger of splitting and being destroyed.

“But we can’t tolerate it. And it isn’t good enough for Jeremy simply to say he has threats too. Well, I’ve had death threats, I’ve had threats too, but I’m telling him, it’s got to be stamped out. We’ve got to have zero tolerance of this in the Labour party.”

While Smith’s conclusion is correct, his analysis is worryingly wrong.

Whether it is out of incompetence or an unwillingness to see the extent of the situation, Corbyn has done very little to stamp out abuse in his party, which has thus been allowed to escalate. It is fair enough of Smith to criticise him for his failure to stem the flow and punish the perpetrators.

It is also reasonable to condemn Corbyn's inability to stop allies like Chancellor John McDonnell and Unite leader Len McCluskey using violent language (“lynch mob”, “fucking useless”, etc) about their opponents, which feeds into the aggressive atmosphere. Though, as I’ve written before, Labour politicians on all sides have a duty to watch their words.

But it’s when we see how Smith came to the point of urging Corbyn to take more responsibility that we should worry. Smith confidently argues that there wasn’t “this sort of abuse and intolerance, misogyny, antisemitism” in the party before Corbyn was voted in. (I assume when he says “this sort”, he means online, death threats, letters, and abuse at protests. The sort that has been high-profile recently).

This is naïve. Anyone involved in Labour politics – or anything close to it – for longer than Corbyn’s leadership could tell Smith that misogyny and antisemitism have been around for a pretty long time. Perhaps because Smith isn’t the prime target, he hasn’t been paying close enough attention. Sexism wasn’t just invented nine months ago, and we shouldn’t let the belief set in that it did – then it simply becomes a useful tool for Corbyn’s detractors to bash him with, rather than a longstanding, structural problem to solve.

Smith's lament that “it’s now become something that is being talked about” is also jarring. Isnt it a good thing that such abuse is now being called out so publicly, and closely scrutinised by the media?

In my eyes, this is a bit like the argument that Corbyn has lost Labour’s heartlands. No, he hasn’t. They have been slowly slipping away for years – and we all noticed when Labour took a beating in the last general election (way before Corbyn had anything to do with the Labour leadership). As with the abuse, Corbyn hasn’t done much to address this, and his inaction has therefore exacerbated it. But if we tell ourselves that it started with him, then we’re grasping for a very, very simple solution (remove Corbyn = automatic win in the North, and immediate erasure of misogyny and antisemitism) to a problem we have catastrophically failed to analyse.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.