Shadow chief secretary to the Treasury Chris Leslie. Photograph: BBC News.
Show Hide image

Labour's axeman puts the left-wing case for deficit reduction

Chris Leslie argues that progressives have a duty to prove they can be fiscally responsible.

After the return of economic growth, few now recall that the next government, whether Conservative or Labour, will implement some of the most severe cuts to public services in modern history. That these reductions are likely to take a place at a time of rising prosperity and after some departments have already been cut by 25 per cent, will make them even harder to defend.

The speech today by shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, Chris Leslie, Labour's axeman in chief, was a reminder of the challenges the opposition will face. If it is to meet its pledge to eliminate the current deficit by the end of the next parliament and to reduce the national debt as a share of GDP (while leaving room to borrow for capital spending), Labour will have to make major cuts to these services it does not choose to prioritise (expect the NHS, childcare, skills and employment to be favoured).

As Leslie said in his speech:

I’m not heading into this expecting popularity. Quite the opposite.

All government departments in the next Labour Government will have to face fundamental questions as never before.

We won’t be able to undo the cuts that the have been felt in recent years. And I know that this will be disappointing for many people.

A more limited pot of money will have to be spent on a smaller number of priorities. Lower priorities will get less.

The key policy announcement was that Labour would not hold one-year spending reviews of the kind recently introduced by George Osborne (almost entirely for political reasons), instead always setting budgets on a multi-year basis. In turn, Whitehall will be expected to provide public bodies and organisations under its stewardship with the same longer-term certainties. Leslie criticised instances of "short-term budget decisions that cost more in the long run":

·         "The closure of fourteen prisons at the Ministry of Justice, creating a shortage of capacity and provoking Ministers to later change tack and commission new ‘Titan’ prison projects which appear unfunded and may even worsen re-offending.

·         "A decision to withdraw the A14 upgrade in 2010 as “unaffordable” at £1.3 billion – yet the resurrection of the same scheme in 2013 now costing £1.5 billion.

·         "The roads maintenance budget for local authorities cut by a fifth in 2013, followed by an about-turn in 2014 with a complex ‘Potholes Challenge Fund’ assessed by Whitehall civil servants on the basis of bureaucratic bids submitted from town halls – hardly progress towards localism.

·         "And not forgetting the bedroom tax, which not only causes great hardship but merely shunts costs from local authority housing benefit and into the more expensive private rented sector element of housing benefit."

But the most intellectually notable part of the speech was Leslie's attempt to make the progressive case for deficit reduction. As he argued, it is those on the centre-left, as the champions of a social democratic state, who have a duty to prove that they are fiscally responsible. The belief that the public sector is invariably wasteful gives the right the licence they need to permanently roll back services.

He said:

Why does it matters so much to get the books into balance?

Because if you believe that as a society we achieve more by coming together and pooling our resources to deliver services from which we all benefit, then we have a responsibility to prove to the taxpayer that this can be done efficiently and effectively.

Public service budgets have got to be sustainable.

We need to continually demonstrate to taxpayers that they can trust the public realm to manage services well.

The alternative risks eroding public confidence and an opt-out culture of private provision for those who can afford it - and sub-standard services for the rest.

There’s no reason why we cannot create decent quality services and a fair society while living within our means.

This is why I believe those on the progressive centre-left of politics should embrace the goal of balancing the books. There is nothing left-wing about running a deficit.

If Labour is to avoid an internal war over cuts in the next parliament, it is an argument he will have to make repeatedly.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty.
Show Hide image

Hannan Fodder: This week, Daniel Hannan gets his excuses in early

I didn't do it. 

Since Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy...

When I started this column, there were some nay-sayers talking Britain down by doubting that I was seriously going to write about Daniel Hannan every week. Surely no one could be that obsessed with the activities of one obscure MEP? And surely no politician could say enough ludicrous things to be worthy of such an obsession?

They were wrong, on both counts. Daniel and I are as one on this: Leave and Remain, working hand in glove to deliver on our shared national mission. There’s a lesson there for my fellow Remoaners, I’m sure.

Anyway. It’s week three, and just as I was worrying what I might write this week, Dan has ridden to the rescue by writing not one but two columns making the same argument – using, indeed, many of the exact same phrases (“not a club, but a protection racket”). Like all the most effective political campaigns, Dan has a message of the week.

First up, on Monday, there was this headline, in the conservative American journal, the Washington Examiner:

“Why Brexit should work out for everyone”

And yesterday, there was his column on Conservative Home:

“We will get a good deal – because rational self-interest will overcome the Eurocrats’ fury”

The message of the two columns is straightforward: cooler heads will prevail. Britain wants an amicable separation. The EU needs Britain’s military strength and budget contributions, and both sides want to keep the single market intact.

The Con Home piece makes the further argument that it’s only the Eurocrats who want to be hardline about this. National governments – who have to answer to actual electorates – will be more willing to negotiate.

And so, for all the bluster now, Theresa May and Donald Tusk will be skipping through a meadow, arm in arm, before the year is out.

Before we go any further, I have a confession: I found myself nodding along with some of this. Yes, of course it’s in nobody’s interests to create unnecessary enmity between Britain and the continent. Of course no one will want to crash the economy. Of course.

I’ve been told by friends on the centre-right that Hannan has a compelling, faintly hypnotic quality when he speaks and, in retrospect, this brief moment of finding myself half-agreeing with him scares the living shit out of me. So from this point on, I’d like everyone to keep an eye on me in case I start going weird, and to give me a sharp whack round the back of the head if you ever catch me starting a tweet with the word, “Friends-”.

Anyway. Shortly after reading things, reality began to dawn for me in a way it apparently hasn’t for Daniel Hannan, and I began cataloguing the ways in which his argument is stupid.

Problem number one: Remarkably for a man who’s been in the European Parliament for nearly two decades, he’s misunderstood the EU. He notes that “deeper integration can be more like a religious dogma than a political creed”, but entirely misses the reason for this. For many Europeans, especially those from countries which didn’t have as much fun in the Second World War as Britain did, the EU, for all its myriad flaws, is something to which they feel an emotional attachment: not their country, but not something entirely separate from it either.

Consequently, it’s neither a club, nor a “protection racket”: it’s more akin to a family. A rational and sensible Brexit will be difficult for the exact same reasons that so few divorcing couples rationally agree not to bother wasting money on lawyers: because the very act of leaving feels like a betrayal.

Or, to put it more concisely, courtesy of Buzzfeed’s Marie Le Conte:

Problem number two: even if everyone was to negotiate purely in terms of rational interest, our interests are not the same. The over-riding goal of German policy for decades has been to hold the EU together, even if that creates other problems. (Exhibit A: Greece.) So there’s at least a chance that the German leadership will genuinely see deterring more departures as more important than mutual prosperity or a good relationship with Britain.

And France, whose presidential candidates are lining up to give Britain a kicking, is mysteriously not mentioned anywhere in either of Daniel’s columns, presumably because doing so would undermine his argument.

So – the list of priorities Hannan describes may look rational from a British perspective. Unfortunately, though, the people on the other side of the negotiating table won’t have a British perspective.

Problem number three is this line from the Con Home piece:

“Might it truly be more interested in deterring states from leaving than in promoting the welfare of its peoples? If so, there surely can be no further doubt that we were right to opt out.”

If there any rhetorical technique more skin-crawlingly horrible, than, “Your response to my behaviour justifies my behaviour”?

I could go on, about how there’s no reason to think that Daniel’s relatively gentle vision of Brexit is shared by Nigel Farage, UKIP, or a significant number of those who voted Leave. Or about the polls which show that, far from the EU’s response to the referendum pushing more European nations towards the door, support for the union has actually spiked since the referendum – that Britain has become not a beacon of hope but a cautionary tale.

But I’m running out of words, and there’ll be other chances to explore such things. So instead I’m going to end on this:

Hannan’s argument – that only an irrational Europe would not deliver a good Brexit – is remarkably, parodically self-serving. It allows him to believe that, if Brexit goes horribly wrong, well, it must all be the fault of those inflexible Eurocrats, mustn’t it? It can’t possibly be because Brexit was a bad idea in the first place, or because liberal Leavers used nasty, populist ones to achieve their goals.

Read today, there are elements of Hannan’s columns that are compelling, even persuasive. From the perspective of 2020, I fear, they might simply read like one long explanation of why nothing that has happened since will have been his fault.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @JonnElledge.