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.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Erdogan’s purge was too big and too organised to be a mere reaction to the failed coup

There is a specific word for the melancholy of Istanbul. The city is suffering a mighty bout of something like hüzün at the moment. 

Even at the worst of times Istanbul is a beautiful city, and the Bosphorus is a remarkable stretch of sea. Turks get very irritated if you call it a river. They are right. The Bosphorus has a life and energy that a river could never equal. Spend five minutes watching the Bosphorus and you can understand why Orhan Pamuk, Turkey’s Nobel laureate for literature, became fixated by it as he grew up, tracking the movements of the ocean-going vessels, the warships and the freighters as they steamed between Asia and Europe.

I went to an Ottoman palace on the Asian side of the Bosphorus, waiting to interview the former prime minister Ahmet Davu­toglu. He was pushed out of office two months ago by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan when he appeared to be too wedded to the clauses in the Turkish constitution which say that the prime minister is the head of government and the president is a ceremonial head of state. Erdogan was happy with that when he was prime minister. But now he’s president, he wants to change the constitution. If Erdogan can win the vote in parliament he will, in effect, be rubber-stamping the reality he has created since he became president. In the days since the attempted coup, no one has had any doubt about who is the power in the land.

 

City of melancholy

The view from the Ottoman palace was magnificent. Beneath a luscious, pine-shaded garden an oil tanker plied its way towards the Black Sea. Small ferries dodged across the sea lanes. It was not, I hasten to add, Davutoglu’s private residence. It had just been borrowed, for the backdrop. But it reminded a Turkish friend of something she had heard once from the AKP, Erdogan’s ruling party: that they would not rest until they were living in the apartments with balconies and gardens overlooking the Bosphorus that had always been the preserve of the secular elite they wanted to replace.

Pamuk also writes about hüzün, the melancholy that afflicts the citizens of Istanbul. It comes, he says, from the city’s history and its decline, the foghorns on the Bosphorus, from tumbledown walls that have been ruins since the fall of the Byzantine empire, unemployed men in tea houses, covered women waiting for buses that never come, pelting rain and dark evenings: the city’s whole fabric and all the lives within it. “My starting point,” Pamuk wrote, “was the emotion that a child might feel while looking through a steamy window.”

Istanbul is suffering a mighty bout of something like hüzün at the moment. In Pamuk’s work the citizens of Istanbul take a perverse pride in hüzün. No one in Istanbul, or elsewhere in Turkey, can draw comfort from what is happening now. Erdogan’s opponents wonder what kind of future they can have in his Turkey. I think I sensed it, too, in the triumphalist crowds of Erdogan supporters that have been gathering day after day since the coup was defeated.

 

Down with the generals

Erdogan’s opponents are not downcast because the coup failed; a big reason why it did was that it had no public support. Turks know way too much about the authoritarian ways of military rule to want it back. The melancholy is because Erdogan is using the coup to entrench himself even more deeply in power. The purge looks too far-reaching, too organised and too big to have been a quick reaction to the attempt on his power. Instead it seems to be a plan that was waiting to be used.

Turkey is a deeply unhappy country. It is hard to imagine now, but when the Arab uprisings happened in 2011 it seemed to be a model for the Middle East. It had elections and an economy that worked and grew. When I asked Davutoglu around that time whether there would be a new Ottoman sphere of influence for the 21st century, he smiled modestly, denied any such ambition and went on to explain that the 2011 uprisings were the true succession to the Ottoman empire. A century of European, and then American, domination was ending. It had been a false start in Middle Eastern history. Now it was back on track. The people of the region were deciding their futures, and perhaps Turkey would have a role, almost like a big brother.

Turkey’s position – straddling east and west, facing Europe and Asia – is the key to its history and its future. It could be, should be, a rock of stability in a desperately un­stable part of the world. But it isn’t, and that is a problem for all of us.

 

Contagion of war

The coup did not come out of a clear sky. Turkey was in deep crisis before the attempt was made. Part of the problem has come from Erdogan’s divisive policies. He has led the AKP to successive election victories since it first won in 2002. But the policies of his governments have not been inclusive. As long as his supporters are happy, the president seems unconcerned about the resentment and opposition he is generating on the other side of politics.

Perhaps that was inevitable. His mission, as a political Islamist, was to change the country, to end the power of secular elites, including the army, which had been dominant since Mustafa Kemal Atatürk created modern Turkey after the collapse of the Ottoman empire. And there is also the influence of chaos and war in the Middle East. Turkey has borders with Iraq and Syria, and is deeply involved in their wars. The borders do not stop the contagion of violence. Hundreds of people have died in the past year in bomb attacks in Turkish cities, some carried out by the jihadists of so-called Islamic State, and some sent by Kurdish separatists working under the PKK.

It is a horrible mix. Erdogan might be able to deal with it better if he had used the attempted coup to try to unite Turkey. All the parliamentary parties condemned it. But instead, he has turned the power of the state against his opponents. More rough times lie ahead.

Jeremy Bowen is the BBC’s Middle East editor. He tweets @bowenbbc

This article first appeared in the 28 July 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Summer Double Issue