Osborne won the battle on austerity, now Labour must look to the future

Rather than re-running the arguments of 2010, the party must start and sustain a debate about what a good, healthy economy looks like.

Earlier this week, George 'Slasher' Osborne gave a speech from a not-so-carefully chosen building site at One Commercial Street, London, E1, in the centre of the City, where he claimed that the economy was 'turning the corner'. Presumably he couldn’t find a suitable site to give the speech from in Newcastle, Birmingham or Liverpool; maybe he was afraid to venture north?  His choice of venue speaks volumes giving the growing disparities between north and south.  

Over the last few months, there have been several positive indicators, including the recent Purchasing Manager Indices (PMIs) as well as data on consumer confidence, retail sales, production and exports.  The recent poor export data suggests that there is still a long way to go before any recovery hits 'escape velocity'. There remain risks to the downside, including from the eurozone, but also from the consumer, who is currently dis-saving, and investment seems unlikely to take off. The rise in bond yields to over 3% also represents a major risk to recovery and may, in the end, force the MPC to engage in further quantitative easing.  It amounts to what the committee called an "unwarranted" monetary tightening.  If, as Osborne claimed, falling bond yields reflected the success of his policies then rising yields should reflect badly; he can’t have it both ways. Moreover, the deficit reduction plan has stalled for the last two years and there is little prospect of it improving.

We need to put all of this in context. Osborne has been responsible for the slowest recovery for more than a century. GDP per capita is now around 7% below its starting level. Four of the last 11 quarters have seen negative growth and we have had two quarters in a row of growth - 0.3% in Q1 2013 and 0.7% in Q2. The chart below illustrates that, 66 months in, the UK economy is still approximately 3% below its 2007 peak. This compares with the recessions of the 1920s and 1930s when at a similar point GDP was just under 7% higher. GDP after the shallow recession of the 1990s was 10% higher. In the period 2009 Q4 - 2010 Q3, output under the Labour government’s policies rose by 2.4%. I start from Q4 2010 on the basis that it took some time for the coalition's policies to take effect. The OBR even had to upgrade its estimate of how strong growth was. In the 11 quarters since then, 2010 Q4 - 2013 Q2, the economy has grown by a total of 1.8%, of which 0.7% occurred in 2012 Q3 because of Labour’s investment in the Olympics. 

The UK is still 2.9% below its 2008 starting level, whereas all of the other major countries, with the exception of the Netherlands and Italy, are above it. The UK has grown 1.8% since 2010 but this is markedly slower than the United States, Canada, Australia and Germany. So under Osborne, the UK has performed worse than France, which does not have its own currency and is unable to engage in quantitative easing. The UK has done worse than the EU, the euro area and the OECD.

Slasher went on to claim that the recent sharp pick-up in the PMIs and some better housing data meant he had been vindicated. He argued that what he called the "fiscalist" story - that spending cuts and tax rises have had a large impact on output - was wrong. Sadly for him, on the same day he claimed this the prestigious National Bureau of Economic Research published a major study of the impact of Osborne himself on the economy, and the news wasn’t good.

In this important new paper, Òscar Jordà of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco and Alan Taylor of the University of California Davis, argued that the adverse impacts of austerity have been underestimated. They examined Osborne’s post-2010 austerity to determine the share of responsibility that should be borne by the decision to instigate austerity in a slump. The answer, they concluded, is "about three fifths...By 2013...the cumulative effects of these choices amounted to about 3.0% of GDP…Our model also suggests that additional drag from the 2010–12 policies will also continue to be felt into 2014–16, even not allowing for any further austerity." They also argue that, in all likelihood, this may well be an underestimate of the true effect. They concluded that "the vast majority of the difference between the actual UK recovery and what the OBR forecast can be attributed to the Coalition’s austerity policy choices in 2010–13."

The chief political problem for Labour remains the effectiveness of the Tory contamination of the idea of debt; that 'the money ran out' and that it was spent by Labour, and that the boom was a party fuelled by debt. It follows that austerity is a necessary antidote to excess. By extension, say the Tories, the solution to a problem caused by debt cannot possibly be more debt. The challenge for Ed Miliband and Ed Balls, then, is not just that people don't trust them on the economy, it is that they have lost control of what it means to be economically competent. They can talk all they like about living standards, under-employment and wage stagnation. But it sounds as if they are talking about social symptoms, not the essential judgments that underpin sound economic management.

Labour failed to pin the post-2010 stagnation on Osborne - that period is seen by too many people as a continuation of suffering made inevitable by the 2008 crash - and now the two Eds are facing an election campaign where something they see as self-evident - who is really responsible for the past three years of suffering - is too easily portrayed as self-serving partisanship and denial.

Ed Balls is now in a very difficult position. It is bad enough in politics to say 'I told you so' when, deep down, everyone knows you called it right. It is much worse to say it when there is a concerted campaign to say that, actually, you were wrong all along.

The task, then, is to start and sustain a debate about what a good, healthy economy looks like. What kind of jobs? What kind of society does the economy support? Who benefits? Only the south east? What about the workers? That allows Labour to capitalise on the plausible perception that the Tories have just about scraped together enough expansion to keep them and their friends in clover while, as usual, the rest of us fall behind.

Labour has to come up with a coherent plan that appeals to the median voter. Focusing on unfairness and the fact that the coalition has presided over declining living standards is a good idea. But being Osborne-lite won’t work. So many people are hurting and need some hope. Coming up with credible plans to raise real wages, create jobs and reduce youth unemployment looks like the way forward. 

George Osborne astonishingly claimed in his speech "our economic plan is the only sustainable way to raise living standards." This is Labour’s chance to show that simply isn’t the case. There is a lot of work to do.

Ed Miliband and Ed Balls at the Labour conference in Manchester last year. Photograph: Getty Images.

David Blanchflower is economics editor of the New Statesman and professor of economics at Dartmouth College, New Hampshire

Getty
Show Hide image

Is defeat in Stoke the beginning of the end for Paul Nuttall?

The Ukip leader was his party's unity candidate. But after his defeat in Stoke, the old divisions are beginning to show again

In a speech to Ukip’s spring conference in Bolton on February 17, the party’s once and probably future leader Nigel Farage laid down the gauntlet for his successor, Paul Nuttall. Stoke’s by-election was “fundamental” to the future of the party – and Nuttall had to win.
 
One week on, Nuttall has failed that test miserably and thrown the fundamental questions hanging over Ukip’s future into harsh relief. 

For all his bullish talk of supplanting Labour in its industrial heartlands, the Ukip leader only managed to increase the party’s vote share by 2.2 percentage points on 2015. This paltry increase came despite Stoke’s 70 per cent Brexit majority, and a media narrative that was, until the revelations around Nuttall and Hillsborough, talking the party’s chances up.
 
So what now for Nuttall? There is, for the time being, little chance of him resigning – and, in truth, few inside Ukip expected him to win. Nuttall was relying on two well-rehearsed lines as get-out-of-jail free cards very early on in the campaign. 

The first was that the seat was a lowly 72 on Ukip’s target list. The second was that he had been leader of party whose image had been tarnished by infighting both figurative and literal for all of 12 weeks – the real work of his project had yet to begin. 

The chances of that project ever succeeding were modest at the very best. After yesterday’s defeat, it looks even more unlikely. Nuttall had originally stated his intention to run in the likely by-election in Leigh, Greater Manchester, when Andy Burnham wins the Greater Manchester metro mayoralty as is expected in May (Wigan, the borough of which Leigh is part, voted 64 per cent for Brexit).

If he goes ahead and stands – which he may well do – he will have to overturn a Labour majority of over 14,000. That, even before the unedifying row over the veracity of his Hillsborough recollections, was always going to be a big challenge. If he goes for it and loses, his leadership – predicated as it is on his supposed ability to win votes in the north - will be dead in the water. 

Nuttall is not entirely to blame, but he is a big part of Ukip’s problem. I visited Stoke the day before The Guardian published its initial report on Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims, and even then Nuttall’s campaign manager admitted that he was unlikely to convince the “hard core” of Conservative voters to back him. 

There are manifold reasons for this, but chief among them is that Nuttall, despite his newfound love of tweed, is no Nigel Farage. Not only does he lack his name recognition and box office appeal, but the sad truth is that the Tory voters Ukip need to attract are much less likely to vote for a party led by a Scouser whose platform consists of reassuring working-class voters their NHS and benefits are safe.
 
It is Farage and his allies – most notably the party’s main donor Arron Banks – who hold the most power over Nuttall’s future. Banks, who Nuttall publicly disowned as a non-member after he said he was “sick to death” of people “milking” the Hillsborough disaster, said on the eve of the Stoke poll that Ukip had to “remain radical” if it wanted to keep receiving his money. Farage himself has said the party’s campaign ought to have been “clearer” on immigration. 

Senior party figures are already briefing against Nuttall and his team in the Telegraph, whose proprietors are chummy with the beer-swilling Farage-Banks axis. They deride him for his efforts to turn Ukip into “NiceKip” or “Nukip” in order to appeal to more women voters, and for the heavy-handedness of his pitch to Labour voters (“There were times when I wondered whether I’ve got a purple rosette or a red one on”, one told the paper). 

It is Nuttall’s policy advisers - the anti-Farage awkward squad of Suzanne Evans, MEP Patrick O’Flynn (who famously branded Farage "snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive") and former leadership candidate Lisa Duffy – come in for the harshest criticism. Herein lies the leader's almost impossible task. Despite having pitched to members as a unity candidate, the two sides’ visions for Ukip are irreconcilable – one urges him to emulate Trump (who Nuttall says he would not have voted for), and the other urges a more moderate tack. 

Endorsing his leader on Question Time last night, Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell blamed the legacy of the party’s Tea Party-inspired 2015 general election campaign, which saw Farage complain about foreigners with HIV using the NHS in ITV’s leaders debate, for the party’s poor performance in Stoke. Others, such as MEP Bill Etheridge, say precisely the opposite – that Nuttall must be more like Farage. 

Neither side has yet called for Nuttall’s head. He insists he is “not going anywhere”. With his febrile party no stranger to abortive coup and counter-coup, he is unlikely to be the one who has the final say.