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

Budget 2014: how Osborne can reduce Labour's poll lead on living standards

The Chancellor needs to make it clear how national policy on jobs, housing and taxes will improve voters' personal situations.

Two weeks ago, to mark the launch of their brand new party headquarters, the Conservatives held a closed door event with the last Tory leader to win a majority at a general election. Sir John Major was there to launch an apprenticeship scheme. He also addressed the packed room setting out a "moral mission" for the Conservative Party. He said:

"Education reform to make sure that people are being better educated in order to maximise their abilities, Opportunity, by creating jobs. And we should bear in mind that – when we are creating jobs and wish people to move around the country and take those jobs – they need houses to move to as well."

While George Osborne wasn’t actually present at the event, it seems from what we have heard over the weekend that the Chancellor was paying close attention to Major’s words of advice. Speaking to Andrew Marr on Sunday morning, Osborne confirmed that his focus this week was on creating the optimal conditions for private sector led job creation and building more homes (by extending the Help to Buy scheme and building the first new garden city for 100 years in Ebbsfleet). He also dismissed calls for a rise in the 40p tax rate, saying that the government’s focus was raising the personal allowance for people on the lowest incomes (he was at pains to reiterate the fact that anyone earning up to £100,000 would benefit from an increase in the personal allowance).

Whatever people say about the Chancellor, there is no doubt that he is sticking to his guns. Slowly but surely the economy is starting to pick up. The question for Osborne is whether he can link his political and policy priorities to a subsequent rise in living standards. Broad based arguments about the creation of 1million new jobs, reducing the deficit, building 15,000 new homes simply won’t cut it. If the Conservatives want to be seen as the party that stands up for hard working people (to coin a phrase) then they must personalise their commitments making a clear link between national economic policy and the impact any policies will have on the cost of living. Here are just a few suggestions:

It’s not simply the creation of jobs that is key to economic growth. The importance of productivity is often under-reported. As Policy Exchange revealed last week, the flexibility of the UK’s labour market has put us in a much better position to weather the effects of the recession. However, real wages have fallen as output per worker has decreased. The decline in wages has, by in large, been in line with falling productivity. Therefore as the jobs market picks up and productivity increases, wages will again begin to rise.

The problem for Osborne is that people do not automatically link an increase in jobs to a rise in their wages. Were the Chancellor able to make that connection – perhaps by setting out plans to make it easier for businesses to hire more staff by increasing the National Insurance threshold – then I would expect to see the Conservatives close the gap on Labour’s poll lead on "living standards".

Ebbsfleet should be the start of a new wave of beautifully designed, privately funded and locally popular garden cities. As Daniel Knowles observed in his excellent article in the Times: "Ebbsfleet will at best provide 20,000 new homes when it is finished. That is about what London needs very six months with demand."

The housing debate has so far been a numbers game. The statistics are indeed important with some experts suggesting 100,000 new homes being the equivalent to 1 per cent of GDP. However, talking about hard numbers de-personalises the issue. It also strikes fear into communities who wonder if the state will all of a sudden impose an ugly great development on the edge of their beautiful village. It’s therefore important for the Chancellor to set out the emotional and social benefits of building beautiful new houses. Well-designed new garden cities, built near existing towns and cities could offer affordable, family sized homes to younger generations.

They could also offer older people the chance to live in closer proximity to their families. Show me a grandparent who doesn’t want to live closer to their grandchildren. At the moment sky high property prices and a lack of supply have led to younger people having to move hundreds of miles from their roots and family members in search of a job and a place with plenty of decent transport links and amenities such as restaurants and bars. Garden cities and housebuilding in general could be a real economic and social "game changer" but the language need to be less divisive (Nimbys v first time buyers) and more focused on keeping families together.

A great deal has been made of Osborne’s reluctance to increase the 40p tax threshold. The number of people paying the higher rate of income tax has risen steadily from just over 1.7 million in 1993/4 to 4.4 million and is expected to increase to over 5 million next year. That is a staggering one in six of taxpayers, up from one in 20 when Nigel Lawson was Chancellor. However, the people who have suffered the most from the recession are not those earning £40,000 a year. The people who have been hit the hardest are those in what economists term the 40th percentile – earning around £18,000 a year. So it is right that the Chancellor looks to prioritise raising the personal allowance over a change to the 40p rate.

That said, if he was going to look at altering the higher rate bands, the most interesting idea I have seen to date is from the campaign group Renewal. They suggest abolishing the 40p band and moving the higher rate threshold to around £62,000. They estimate that about 2 million people would benefit from this tax cut. Combined with a rise in the personal allowance, Osborne could actually take Renewal’s idea and make the case that during the course of the coalition, the government has actually given 97 per cent of the country a tax cut. A pretty strong electoral message.

Reducing unemployment, increasing the supply of housing and boosting the pay packets of people on low and middle incomes are all policies that will help drive economic growth. The Chancellor is sometimes dismissed as a political tactician lacking a real strategic direction. I think this is a lazy assumption. He has surrounded himself with some of the brightest advisors and has a clear understanding of what is needed to both drive economic growth and increase living standards. The trick is to continue doing what he’s doing but to ensure that he continually links the two. 

Nick Faith is Director of Communications at Policy Exchange

Nick Faith is Director of Communications at Policy Exchange

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

How the row over Jackie Walker triggered a full-blown war in Momentum

Jon Lansman, the organisation's founder, is coming under attack. 

The battle for control within Momentum, which has been brewing for some time, has begun in earnest.

In a sign of the growing unrest within the organisation – established as the continuation of Jeremy Corbyn’s first successful leadership bid, and instrumental in delivering in his re-election -  a critical pamphlet by the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty (AWL), a Trotskyite grouping, has made its way into the pages of the Times, with the “unelected” chiefs of Momentum slated for turning the organisation into a “bland blur”.

The issue of contention: between those who see Momentum as an organisation to engage new members of the Labour party, who have been motivated by Jeremy Corbyn but are not yet Corbynites.

One trade unionist from that tendency described what they see the problem as like this: “you have people who have joined to vote for Jeremy, they’re going to meetings, but they’re voting for the Progress candidates in selections, they’re voting for Eddie Izzard [who stood as an independent but Corbynsceptic candidate] in the NEC”.  

On the other are those who see a fightback by Labour’s right and centre as inevitable, and who are trying to actively create a party within a party for what they see as an inevitable purge. One activist of that opinion wryly described Momentum as “Noah’s Ark”.

For both sides, Momentum, now financially stable thanks to its membership, which now stands at over 20,000, is a great prize. And in the firing line for those who want to turn Momentum into a parallel line is Jon Lansman, the organisation’s founder.

Lansman, who came into politics as an aide to Tony Benn, is a figure of suspicion on parts of the broad left due to his decades-long commitment to the Labour party. His major opposition within Momentum and on its ruling executive comes from the AWL.

The removal of Jackie Walker as a vice-chair of Momentum after she said that Holocaust Memorial Day belittled victims of other genocides has boosted the AWL, although the AWL's Jill Mountford, who sits on Momentum's ruling executive, voted to remove Walker as vice-chair. (Walker remains on the NEC, as she has been elected by members). But despite that, the AWL, who have been critical of the process whereby Walker lost her post, have felt the benefit across the country.

Why? Because that battle has triggered a series of serious splits, not only in Momentum’s executive but its grassroots. A raft of local groups have thrown out the local leadership, mostly veterans of Corbyn’s campaign for the leadership, for what the friend of one defeated representative described as “people who believe the Canary [a pro-Corbyn politics website that is regularly accused of indulging and promoting conspiracy theories]”.

In a further series of reverses for the Lansmanite caucus, the North West, a Momentum stronghold since the organisation was founded just under a year ago, is slipping away from old allies of Lansman and towards the “new” left. As one insider put it, the transition is from longstanding members towards people who had been kicked out in the late 1980s and early 1990s by Neil Kinnock. The constituency party of Wallasey in particular is giving senior figures in Momentum headaches just as it is their opponents on the right of the party, with one lamenting that they have “lost control” of the group.

It now means that planned changes to Momentum’s structure, which the leadership had hoped to be rubberstamped by members, now face a fraught path to passage.

Adding to the organisation’s difficulties is the expected capture of James Schneider by the leader’s office. Schneider, who appears widely on television and radio as the public face of Momentum and is well-liked by journalists, has an offer on the table to join Jeremy Corbyn’s team at Westminster as a junior to Seumas Milne.

The move, while a coup for Corbyn, is one that Momentum – and some of Corbyn’s allies in the trade union movement – are keen to resist. Taking a job in the leader’s office would reduce still further the numbers of TV-friendly loyalists who can go on the airwaves and defend the leadership. There is frustration among the leader’s office that as well as Diane Abbott and John McDonnell, who are both considered to be both polished media performers and loyalists, TV bookers turn to Ken Livingstone, who is retired and unreliable, and Paul Mason, about whom opinions are divided within Momentum. Some regard Mason as a box office performer who needs a bigger role, others as a liability.

But all are agreed that Schneider’s expected departure will weaken the media presence of Corbyn loyalists and also damage Momentum. Schneider has spent much of his time not wrangling journalists but mediating in local branches and is regarded as instrumental in the places “where Momentum is working well” in the words of one trade unionist. (Cornwall is regarded as a particular example of what the organisation should be aiming towards)

It comes at a time when Momentum’s leadership is keen to focus both on its external campaigns but the struggle for control in the Labour party. Although Corbyn has never been stronger within the party, no Corbynite candidate has yet prevailed in a by-election, with the lack of available candidates at a council level regarded as part of the problem. Councilors face mandatory reselection as a matter of course, and the hope is that a bumper crop of pro-Corbyn local politicians will go on to form the bulk of the talent pool for vacant seats in future by-elections and in marginal seats at the general election.

But at present, a draining internal battle is sapping Momentum of much of its vitality. But Lansman retains two trump cards. The first is that as well as being the founder of the organisation, he is its de facto owner: the data from Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership campaigns, without which much of the organisation could not properly run, is owned by a limited company of which he is sole director. But “rolling it up and starting again” is very much the nuclear option, that would further delay the left’s hopes of consolidating its power base in the party.

The second trump card, however, is the tribalism of many of the key players at a local level, who will resist infiltration by groups to Labour’s left just as fiercely as many on the right. As one veteran of both Corbyn’s campaigns reflected: “If those who have spent 20 years attacking our party think they have waiting allies in the left of Labour, they are woefully mistaken”. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.