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

Where are the moderate Tories condemning Zac Goldsmith’s campaign?

Conservative MPs are reluctant to criticise the London mayoral candidate’s dogwhistle rhetoric.

Very few Conservative politicians have criticised Zac Goldsmith’s campaign to be elected London mayor. And, amid repeated accusations of racial profiling, Islamophobic undertones, and patronising London’s Indian communities, there has been plenty to criticise.

Ever since describing his rival, Sadiq Khan, as having “radical politics” at the end of last year, Goldsmith’s campaign has come under fire for attempting to sound a dogwhistle to voters for whom racial politics – and divisions – are a priority.

You may feel it’s naïve of me to expect Tory MPs to join in the criticism. Presumably most Tory MPs want their party’s candidate to win the mayoralty. So it is unlikely that they would condemn his methods.

But I’d argue that, in this case, we can’t excuse dodged questions and studied silence as good clean tribalism. Granted, Conservatives only want to see their party make electoral gains. And that is understandable. But trickier to explain away is how willing all of the party’s MPs – many of whom are as moderate and “cotton-wool Tory” (in the words of one Labour adviser) as we once assumed Goldsmith was – are to ignore the campaign’s nastier side.

Why aren’t the Cameroons (or neo-Cameroons) who wish to further “detoxify” the party speaking out? There are plenty of them. There is more enthusiasm on the Tory benches for David Cameron than is generally assumed. Many of the 2015 intake are grateful to him; those in marginal seats in particular see him as the reason they won last year. And in spite of the grumbling nature of the 2010-ers, a number of them are keener than appears on Cameron. After all, plenty wouldn’t be in parliament without his A-list and open primaries (a time when the party was supposed to be opening up to candidates of different backgrounds, something Goldsmith’s rhetoric could threaten).

And we know it’s not just Labour whining about Goldsmith’s campaign. It makes Tories uncomfortable too. For example, the Conservative Group Leader at Watford Council Binita Mehta, former Conservative candidate Shazia Awan, and Tory peer and former minister Sayeeda Warsi have spoken out.

And it’s not just non-MPs who are riled by Goldsmith’s rhetoric. Behind the scenes, Conservative MPs have been muttering for weeks about feeling uncomfortable about the campaign.

“There has been a sense that this is a bad dogwhistle, and it’s a bit of a smear,” one Tory MP tells me. “I don’t think Sadiq Khan’s a bad man at all – I think his problem is, which happens to all politicians, is some of the platforms in the past and the people he shared them with, and maybe he didn’t know – I mean, the number of times David Cameron or Gordon Brown or Tony Blair were shown at some fundraising thing, or just visiting somewhere, shaking hands with somebody who turns out to be a crook; that’s the nature of mass politics.”

There is also a mixed view among London’s Tory MPs about the tone of Goldsmith’s campaign generally. Some, who were frustrated in the beginning by his “laidback, slightly disengaged” style, are simply pleased that he finally decided to play dirty with the more energetic Khan. Others saw his initial lighter touch as an asset, and lament that he is trying to emulate Boris Johnson by being outrageous – but, unlike the current London mayor, doesn’t have the personality to get away with it.

One Tory MP describes it as a “cold, Lynton Crosby calculation of the dogwhistle variety”, and reveals that, a couple of weeks ago, there was a sense among some that it was “too much” and had “gone too far and is counterproductive”.

But this sense has apparently dissipated. Since Labour’s antisemitism crisis unfolded last week, moderate Conservative MPs feel more comfortable keeping their mouths shut about Goldsmith’s campaign. This is because racism in Labour has been exposed, even if Khan is not involved. Ironic really, considering they were (rightly) so quick to condemn Ken Livingstone’s comments and call on Jeremy Corbyn and Labour MPs to speak out against such sentiments. It’s worth noting that Labour’s moderates have been significantly less reluctant than their Tory counterparts to call out such problems in their own party.

There is also the EU referendum to consider. Tory MPs see division and infighting ahead, and don’t want to war more than is necessary. One source close to a Tory MP tells me: “[Goldsmith’s campaign] is uncomfortable for all of us – it’s not even considered a Conservative campaign, it’s considered a Zac Goldsmith campaign. But [we can’t complain because] we have to concentrate on Europe.”

So it makes sense politically, in the short term, for Tory moderates to keep quiet. But I expect they know that they have shirked a moral duty to call out such nasty campaign methods. Their calls for Labour’s response to antisemitism, and David Cameron’s outrage about Jeremy Corbyn’s “friends” in Hamas and Hezbollah, are simply hollow attack lines if they can’t hold their own party to higher standards.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.