George Osborne holds his red box aloft. Photo:Getty Images
Show Hide image

Labour must make the case for greater spending: in its past and the future

George Osborne is selling off our children's future. Labour must set a different course, argues John Healey MP. 

Government has a duty to do what no individual can and no business will: look out for the long term interests of a country and its citizens.

George Osborne’s political trick of the last five years against a too-timid Labour opposition has been to define our national, long-term economic interest as a problem of the fiscal deficit.

Never mind that if the UK economy had continued to grow at the same rate as the first six months of 2010, before Labour’s recovery was choked off, it would be £100bn bigger today. A Yorkshire-sized lump of lost national income, and thousands of good jobs that we could now have had gone with it.  

Never mind that GDP per person is still lower than before the 2008 global banking crisis and crash, with most people still thinking their household finances are getting worse not better.

Never mind that only France, Italy and Japan of the G20 countries have grown slower than the UK since 2010. Or that Osborne has led the slowest UK recovery from recession for 100 years – the main reason he failed to deal with the deficit as he promised in the last Parliament.

In Osborne’s Ministry of Truth where black is white and war is peace, vital job-creating, growth-generating investment in our country’s future is the threat.

How else to explain the Chancellor’s plan to legislate that government runs a surplus? His latest political trick to double down on an economic narrative that locks Labour out. It may be good politics but it is bad economics and bad fiscal management.

If we let him do it, then Labour won’t win in 2020, and we won’t deserve to. We know that in the last Parliament, growth weakened as the Tories cut public investment in infrastructure in half, reduced government investment on R&D, slashed vital capital investment on affordable homes, and cut further education.

Economists may argue about the scale of the knock-on economic effect of cutting this sort of spending – the so-called fiscal multiplier – but almost all agree it is significant, and bigger in a downturn or during a recovery. A mid-range IMF estimate suggests that for every £1m governments cut, their economy shrinks between £0.9m and £1.7m.

But investment spending brings more benefit than just short-term economic stimulus.

It’s vital in the long-term as a sure-fire way to lock in both higher growth and higher productivity, which is imperative for good jobs in the future. Without investment in transport, research, skills, energy and communications we won’t create and keep the well-paying jobs we need in Britain.  

And it’s vital to any alternative vision of making Britain a better place. Government decisions today determine the opportunities that our children will have tomorrow.

It’s their futures that George Osborne is failing when he chokes off public investment. And their potential he is stunting when he limits our country’s economic potential.

Just as his surplus rule would not work for a family looking for a mortgage to buy their own home, a teenager wanting to go to university or a business aiming to expand, it’s counterproductive too for a country that needs to invest in its future.

The public agree. By nine percentage points, they think the best way to grow our economy is to boost productivity and invest rather than focusing on cutting the deficit and lowering taxes.

No party of the centre-left deserves to get into power if it can’t convince people that government can be a force for good, not just in distributing national income but in creating it too. These arguments are there for the making. And ahead of the Budget next week, Labour must make them.

John Healey is the Labour MP for Wentworth and Dearne and was formerly housing minister, local government minister and financial secretary to the Treasury

Photo: Getty Images/AFP
Show Hide image

Is Yvette Cooper surging?

The bookmakers and Westminster are in a flurry. Is Yvette Cooper going to win after all? I'm not convinced. 

Is Yvette Cooper surging? The bookmakers have cut her odds, making her the second favourite after Jeremy Corbyn, and Westminster – and Labour more generally – is abuzz with chatter that it will be her, not Corbyn, who becomes leader on September 12. Are they right? A couple of thoughts:

I wouldn’t trust the bookmakers’ odds as far as I could throw them

When Jeremy Corbyn first entered the race his odds were at 100 to 1. When he secured the endorsement of Unite, Britain’s trade union, his odds were tied with Liz Kendall, who nobody – not even her closest allies – now believes will win the Labour leadership. When I first tipped the Islington North MP for the top job, his odds were still at 3 to 1.

Remember bookmakers aren’t trying to predict the future, they’re trying to turn a profit. (As are experienced betters – when Cooper’s odds were long, it was good sense to chuck some money on there, just to secure a win-win scenario. I wouldn’t be surprised if Burnham’s odds improve a bit as some people hedge for a surprise win for the shadow health secretary, too.)

I still don’t think that there is a plausible path to victory for Yvette Cooper

There is a lively debate playing out – much of it in on The Staggers – about which one of Cooper or Burnham is best-placed to stop Corbyn. Team Cooper say that their data shows that their candidate is the one to stop Corbyn. Team Burnham, unsurprisingly, say the reverse. But Team Kendall, the mayoral campaigns, and the Corbyn team also believe that it is Burnham, not Cooper, who can stop Corbyn.

They think that the shadow health secretary is a “bad bank”: full of second preferences for Corbyn. One senior Blairite, who loathes Burnham with a passion, told me that “only Andy can stop Corbyn, it’s as simple as that”.

I haven’t seen a complete breakdown of every CLP nomination – but I have seen around 40, and they support that argument. Luke Akehurst, a cheerleader for Cooper, published figures that support the “bad bank” theory as well.   Both YouGov polls show a larger pool of Corbyn second preferences among Burnham’s votes than Cooper’s.

But it doesn’t matter, because Andy Burnham can’t make the final round anyway

The “bad bank” row, while souring relations between Burnhamettes and Cooperinos even further, is interesting but academic.  Either Jeremy Corbyn will win outright or he will face Cooper in the final round. If Liz Kendall is eliminated, her second preferences will go to Cooper by an overwhelming margin.

Yes, large numbers of Kendall-supporting MPs are throwing their weight behind Burnham. But Kendall’s supporters are overwhelmingly giving their second preferences to Cooper regardless. My estimate, from both looking at CLP nominations and speaking to party members, is that around 80 to 90 per cent of Kendall’s second preferences will go to Cooper. Burnham’s gaffes – his “when it’s time” remark about Labour having a woman leader, that he appears to have a clapometer instead of a moral compass – have discredited him in him the eyes of many. While Burnham has shrunk, Cooper has grown. And for others, who can’t distinguish between Burnham and Cooper, they’d prefer to have “a crap woman rather than another crap man” in the words of one.

This holds even for Kendall backers who believe that Burnham is a bad bank. A repeated refrain from her supporters is that they simply couldn’t bring themselves to give Burnham their 2nd preference over Cooper. One senior insider, who has been telling his friends that they have to opt for Burnham over Cooper, told me that “faced with my own paper, I can’t vote for that man”.

Interventions from past leaders fall on deaf ears

A lot has happened to change the Labour party in recent years, but one often neglected aspect is this: the Labour right has lost two elections on the bounce. Yes, Ed Miliband may have rejected most of New Labour’s legacy and approach, but he was still a protégé of Gordon Brown and included figures like Rachel Reeves, Ed Balls and Jim Murphy in his shadow cabinet.  Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham were senior figures during both defeats. And the same MPs who are now warning that Corbyn will doom the Labour Party to defeat were, just months ago, saying that Miliband was destined for Downing Street and only five years ago were saying that Gordon Brown was going to stay there.

Labour members don’t trust the press

A sizeable number of Labour party activists believe that the media is against them and will always have it in for them. They are not listening to articles about Jeremy Corbyn’s past associations or reading analyses of why Labour lost. Those big, gamechanging moments in the last month? Didn’t change anything.

100,000 people didn’t join the Labour party on deadline day to vote against Jeremy Corbyn

On the last day of registration, so many people tried to register to vote in the Labour leadership election that they broke the website. They weren’t doing so on the off-chance that the day after, Yvette Cooper would deliver the speech of her life. Yes, some of those sign-ups were duplicates, and 3,000 of them have been “purged”.  That still leaves an overwhelmingly large number of sign-ups who are going to go for Corbyn.

It doesn’t look as if anyone is turning off Corbyn

Yes, Sky News’ self-selecting poll is not representative of anything other than enthusiasm. But, equally, if Yvette Cooper is really going to beat Jeremy Corbyn, surely, surely, she wouldn’t be in third place behind Liz Kendall according to Sky’s post-debate poll. Surely she wouldn’t have been the winner according to just 6.1 per cent of viewers against Corbyn’s 80.7 per cent. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.