Show Hide image

Balls’s demise has been exaggerated

On a Labour front bench that’s hardly groaning with heavyweight talent, the shadow chancellor is as close as anyone to being indispensable.

Let’s not throw Ed Balls out with the bathwater. Yes, Labour’s shadow chancellor had a bad week. A poor response to the autumn statement was further undermined by a misguided attempt to blame the whole thing on his stutter, and an even more misguided attempt to brand the Tories as callous for revelling in his discomfort.

It wasn’t just the Tory party relishing the shadow chancellor’s misfortune. A Labour frontbencher told the Mail on Sunday: “The Balls brand was built on an aura of invincibility. But against George Osborne last week, he was as nimble as an arthritic elephant. He’s been holed below the waterline by one speech.”

No, he hasn’t. Ed Balls had a bad day at the office. OK, he poured coffee into his hard drive, smashed the photocopier and called his manager a moron. But his position is still secure.

Gross exaggeration

There are a number of reasons why Balls’s demise has been exaggerated. The first is that it would make sense for Ed Miliband to eject his shadow chancellor only if he wanted to signal a change in his stance on the economy. There’s more chance of Miliband turning up at PMQs in
a chicken costume than unveiling his own economic plan B.

Last year, I wrote that the Balls “Too far, too fast” mantra was helping the Tories: “The deficit is the defining issue in British politics. And Tory attempts to brand Labour as deficit deniers have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.”

And so it’s proved. But deficit denial is now Labour’s strategy for 2015. By pointing to the callousness of the Tory cuts, contrasting them with the iniquitous axing of the 50p income-tax rate, and praying Osbornomics leads us into a triple- or quadruple-dip recession, Miliband is gambling on turning us into a nation of deficit deniers. And frankly, there is no one in the shadow cabinet with a better chance of pulling off that strategy than its architect.

Another reason why Miliband isn’t going to be dumping Balls is that he doesn’t trust him. He has no intention of letting him roam free on the back benches causing mischief, nor have him rattling around a second-tier brief with time – and a leader – to kill.

Tory big guns

But there is an even more compelling incentive for Miliband to retain the services of his temporarily misfiring shadow chancellor. The Tories – conscious that they have underestimated the threat posed by Miliband and his “new politics” – are bringing up the big guns. A ferocious barrage is about to be launched and Miliband will need every seasoned political veteran he can find.

There are few in Labour’s ranks who bear, or have administered, more battle scars than Balls. On a Labour front bench that’s hardly groaning with heavyweight talent, he is as close as anyone seems to being indispensable. Which doesn’t mean he has no lessons to learn.

The Balls-the-Bruiser routine has run its course. He needs to cut out the taunting and the flatlining hand gestures at PMQs and start acting like the next chancellor, not the next Nadine Dorries. If he is going to stick to his Keynesian economic model, it needs to be internally consistent; Labour can’t simultaneously advocate a freeze in public-sector pay but an inflation-busting rise in benefits, for example. And he’s got to shut up about that stutter.

Despite hostility towards the coalition, the electorate is not convinced by Labour’s strategy of deficit denial and many still believe the party is culpable for losing control of the nation’s finances while in power. But if anyone can help lead Labour to victory against all the odds, it is Ed Balls, with or without a stutter.

An earlier version of this article wrongly attributed a quote to John Mann MP. This has now been updated and we apologise to Mr Mann.

This article first appeared in the 17 December 2012 issue of the New Statesman, Will Europe ever go to war again?

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

What's to be done about racial inequality?

David Cameron's words on equal opportunities are to be welcomed - now for some action, says Sunder Katwala.

David Cameron made the strongest, clearest and most high profile statement about ethnic inequalities and the need to tackle discrimination ever yet offered by a British Prime Minister in his leader’s speech to the Conservative Party conference in Manchester.
“Picture this. You’ve graduated with a good degree. You send out your CV far and wide. But you get rejection after rejection. What’s wrong? It’s not the qualifications or the previous experience. It’s just two words at the top: first name, surname. Do you know that in our country today: even if they have exactly the same qualifications, people with white-sounding names are nearly twice as likely to get call backs for jobs than people with ethnic-sounding names? … That, in 21st century Britain, is disgraceful. We can talk all we want about opportunity, but it’s meaningless unless people are really judged equally”, said Cameron.
While the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, this was a powerfully argued Prime Ministerial intervention – and a particularly well-timed one, for three reasons.

Firstly, the Prime Minister was able to root his case in an all-but-universally accepted appeal for equal opportunities. It will always prove more difficult in practice to put political energy and resources behind efforts to remedy discrimination against a minority of the population unless a convincing fairness case is made that values cherished across our whole society are at stake. Cameron’s argument, that any party which tells itself that it is the party of the ‘fair chance’ and ‘the equal shot’ must have a response when there is such clear evidence of discrimination, should prove persuasive to a Conservative Party that has not seen race inequalities as its natural territory. Cameron argued that the same principles should animate responses to discrimination when it comes to race, gender and social class. Put like that, wanting job interviews to be fair – by eradicating conscious and unconscious patterns of bias wherever possible – would strike most Britons as offering as clear a case of the values of fair play as wanting the best baker to win the Great British Bake-Off on television.
Secondly, Cameron’s intervention comes at a potential "tipping point" moment for fair opportunities across ethnic groups. Traditionally, ethnic discrimination has been discussed primarily through the lens of its impact on the most marginalised. Certainly, persistent gaps in the criminal justice system, mental health provision and unemployment rates remain stark for some minority groups. What has been less noticed is the emergence of a much more complex pattern of opportunity and disadvantage – not least as a consequence of significant ethnic minority progress.

Most strikingly of all, in educational outcomes, historic attainment gaps between ethnic minorities and their white British peers have disappeared over the last decade. In the aggregate, ethnic minorities get better GCSE results on average. Ethnic minority Britons are more likely, not less likely, to be university graduates than their fellow citizens. 

As a result of that progress, Cameron’s intervention comes at a moment of significant potential – but significant risk too. Britain’s ethnic minorities are the youngest and fastest-growing sections of British society. If that educational progress translates into economic success, it will make a significant contribution to the "Great British Take-Off" that the Prime Minister envisions. But if that does not happen, with educational convergence combined with current ‘ethnic penalties’ in employment and income persisting, then that potential could well curdle into frustration that the British promise of equal opportunities is not being kept.  Cameron also mirrored his own language in committing himself to both a ‘fight against extremism’ and a ‘fight against discrimination’: while those are distinct challenges and causes, actively pursuing both tracks simultaneously has the potential, at least, depolarise some debates about responses to extremism  - and so to help deepen the broad social coalitions we need for a more cohesive society too.

Thirdly, Cameron’s challenge could mark an important deepening in the political competition between the major parties on race issues. Many have been struck by the increase in political attention on the centre-right to race issues over the last five to ten years. The focus has been on the politics of representation. By increasing the number of non-white Conservative MPs from two to seventeen since 2005, Cameron has sent a powerful signal that Labour’s traditional claim to be ‘the party of ethnic minorities’ would now be contested. Cameron was again able to celebrate in Manchester several ways in which his Cabinet and Parliamentary benches demonstrate many successful journeys of migrant and minority integration in British society. That might perhaps help to ease the fears, about integration being impossible in an era of higher immigration, which the Home Secretary had articulated the previous day.

So symbolism can matter. But facial diversity is not enough. The politics of ethnic minority opportunity needs to be about more than visits to gurdwaras, diversity nights at the party conference fringes and unveiling statues of Mahatma Gandhi in Parliament Square. Jeremy Corbyn’s first speech as Labour leader did include one brief celebratory reference to Britain’s ethnic diversity – “as I travelled the country during the leadership campaign it was wonderful to see the diversity of all the people in our country” – and to Labour bringing in more black, Asian and ethnic minority members - but it did not include any substantial content on discrimination. Tim Farron acknowledged during his leadership campaign that the Liberal Democrats have struggled to get to the starting-line on race and diversity at all. The opposition parties too will no doubt now be challenged to match not just the Prime Minister’s rhetorical commitment to challenging inequalities but also to propose how it could be done in practice.

Non-white Britons expect substance, not just symbolism from all of the parties on race inequalites.  Survation’s large survey of ethnic minority voters for British Future showed the Conservatives winning more ethnic minority support than ever before – but just 29 per cent of non-white respondents were confident that the Conservatives are committed to treating people of every ethnic background equally, while 54 per cent said this of Labour. Respondents were twice as likely to say that the Conservatives needto do more to reach out – and the Prime Minister would seem to be committed to showing that he has got that message.  Moreover, there is evidence that ethnic inclusion could be important in broadening a party’s appeal to other younger, urban and more liberal white voters too – which is why it made sense for this issue to form part of a broader attempt by David Cameron to colonise the broad centre of British politics in his Manchester speech.

But the case for caution is that there has been limited policy attention to ethnic inequalities under the last two governments. Restaurateur Iqbal Wahhab decided to give up his role chairing an ethnic minority taskforce for successive governments, unconvinced there was a political commitment to do much more than convene a talking shop. Lib Dem equalities minister Lynne Featherstone did push the CV discrimination issue – but many Conservatives were sceptical. Cameron’s new commitment may face similar challenges from those whose instinct is to worry that more attention to discrimination or bias in the jobs market will mean more red tape for business.

Labour had a separate race inequalities manifesto in 2015, outside of its main election manifesto, while the Conservative manifesto did not contain significant commitments to racial inequality. The mid-campaign launch in Croydon of a series of race equality pledges showed an increasing awareness of the growing importance of ethnic minority votes - though the fact that they all involved aiming for increases of 20 per cent by 2020 gave them a slightly back-of-the-envelope feel. 

Prime Ministerial commitments have an important agenda-setting function. A generation ago the Stephen Lawrence case opened the eyes of middle England to racist violence and police failures, particularly through the Daily Mail’s persistent challenging of those injustices. A Conservative Prime Minister’s words could similarly make a big difference in the mainstreaming of the issue of inequalities of opportunity. What action should follow words? Between now and next year’s party conference season, that must will now be the test for this Conservative government – and for their political opponents too. 

Sunder Katwala is director of British Future and former general secretary of the Fabian Society.