Show Hide image

Has Jeremy Corbyn really lost 4m voters? Labour’s election chances in numbers

What you need to know about the Fabian Society report.

It’s not a happy start to 2017 for Labour. A report by the Fabian Society has deemed the party “too weak” to win an election – even if it doesn’t happen until 2020. It argues Labour’s best chance is to govern in coalition with other progressive parties. 

Meanwhile, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has had to field off a new attack, this time from Unite chief Len McCluskey. The prominent Corbyn backer told The Mirror that if the polls were “still awful” in 2019, everyone – including Corbyn – would have to “examine that situation”. 

So how dire will the coming years be for Labour? Here are the numbers you need to know from the Fabian Society report:

20 per cent

Labour’s current poll rating is between 27 and 28 per cent of the vote, which is slightly below what it polled in the 2010 election. But since the party has previously underperformed its mid-term polling, this could sink to 20 per cent in an election. 

140

There are 231 Labour MPs in Parliament today. If a general election was held, this number could fall to as low as 140, based on current polling. 

44 per cent

These are the 44 per cent, or 4m, people who voted for Labour in 2015, but a year and a half later say they would not vote for the party today. Some of this group have switched allegiance to other parties. Roughly 2m say they are undecided or will not vote. Labour’s loyal voters amount to just 5.1m people. So is it Corbyn's fault? According to this YouGov poll, conducted at the height of the Labour leadership contest, it would seem so. However, Labour in Scotland was also decimated in the aftermath of a referendum

2010

Labour’s support doesn’t actually look that different from 2010 (when it lost its majority), but here’s the crucial fact – this statistic only applies in England and Wales. Despite losing to the Conservatives nationwide, Labour actually gained seats in England and Wales in 2015. So what's the problem, you ask?

Zero

The first problem is Scotland. Labour lost all but one of its MPs in 2015, while the SNP cleaned up. Current polling suggests if there was a general election tomorrow, the party would have zero Scottish MPs. And as for the second...

40

On current polling, Labour looks likely to reverse some of those 2015 England and Wales gains, to the tune of losing 39 seats (plus one in Scotland). This is worse than going back to 2010 – 24 seats worse, in fact. 

2.1m

Among those who say they will vote Labour, an estimated 2.1m are “soft” voters who haven’t chosen one of the main parties in an election before. Whether or not they get out of bed on the day and  make their x in the box is yet to be seen.

400,000

Labour has lost roughly 400,000 votes to the Liberal Democrats since 2015, compared to 200,000 each to the Tories and Ukip. This suggests Ukip is less of a threat than commonly believed. On the other hand, the Lib Dems will take Labour votes while the Tory party, second in many marginal constituencies, will snap up seats.  

94

If Labour were to gain a majority at the next general election, the party would need to not only reverse the current losses predicted, but win 94 more seats (at the last election, that number was 68). 

48

But if this wasn’t grim enough, the bad news for Labour is that only 48 seats are considered genuinely marginal (i.e. a 5 per cent swing would be enough to win), compared to 74 in the last parliament. 

8.7 per cent

The national swing Labour would need to win an election with a majority of one is 8.7 per cent. By contrast, in the 2015 election, Labour only needed a 4.6 per cent swing. In other words, if you thought 2015’s election campaign was tough, the party is nearly twice as far from winning this time round. 

30

If Labour accepts it can’t win the next general election, and agrees to work with other anti-Conservative parties like the SNP and the Lib Dems, it could kick the Tories out with a shared majority of 30 seats. 

According to Andrew Harrop, the general secretary of the Fabian Society and author of the report, this is the glimmer of hope.

He said: "Labour may end up winning only 140 to 200 big city and ex-industrial constituencies, but it will have a platform from which to rebuild. On the other hand, if Labour’s fortunes recover sooner, while there is no chance of a majority, the party might be able to gain sufficient MPs to govern in partnership
with other parties.

"That should be Labour’s goal."

 

 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines. 

Getty
Show Hide image

We're racing towards another private debt crisis - so why did no one see it coming?

The Office for Budget Responsibility failed to foresee the rise in household debt. 

This is a call for a public inquiry on the current situation regarding private debt.

For almost a decade now, since 2007, we have been living a lie. And that lie is preparing to wreak havoc on our economy. If we do not create some kind of impartial forum to discuss what is actually happening, the results might well prove disastrous. 

The lie I am referring to is the idea that the financial crisis of 2008, and subsequent “Great Recession,” were caused by profligate government spending and subsequent public debt. The exact opposite is in fact the case. The crash happened because of dangerously high levels of private debt (a mortgage crisis specifically). And - this is the part we are not supposed to talk about—there is an inverse relation between public and private debt levels.

If the public sector reduces its debt, overall private sector debt goes up. That's what happened in the years leading up to 2008. Now austerity is making it happening again. And if we don't do something about it, the results will, inevitably, be another catastrophe.

The winners and losers of debt

These graphs show the relationship between public and private debt. They are both forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility, produced in 2015 and 2017. 

This is what the OBR was projecting what would happen around now back in 2015:

This year the OBR completely changed its forecast. This is how it now projects things are likely to turn out:

First, notice how both diagrams are symmetrical. What happens on top (that part of the economy that is in surplus) precisely mirrors what happens in the bottom (that part of the economy that is in deficit). This is called an “accounting identity.”

As in any ledger sheet, credits and debits have to match. The easiest way to understand this is to imagine there are just two actors, government, and the private sector. If the government borrows £100, and spends it, then the government has a debt of £100. But by spending, it has injected £100 more pounds into the private economy. In other words, -£100 for the government, +£100 for everyone else in the diagram. 

Similarly, if the government taxes someone for £100 , then the government is £100 richer but there’s £100 subtracted from the private economy (+£100 for government, -£100 for everybody else on the diagram).

So what implications does this kind of bookkeeping have for the overall economy? It means that if the government goes into surplus, then everyone else has to go into debt.

We tend to think of money as if it is a bunch of poker chips already lying around, but that’s not how it really works. Money has to be created. And money is created when banks make loans. Either the government borrows money and injects it into the economy, or private citizens borrow money from banks. Those banks don’t take the money from people’s savings or anywhere else, they just make it up. Anyone can write an IOU. But only banks are allowed to issue IOUs that the government will accept in payment for taxes. (In other words, there actually is a magic money tree. But only banks are allowed to use it.)

There are other factors. The UK has a huge trade deficit (blue), and that means the government (yellow) also has to run a deficit (print money, or more accurately, get banks to do it) to inject into the economy to pay for all those Chinese trainers, American iPads, and German cars. The total amount of money can also fluctuate. But the real point here is, the less the government is in debt, the more everyone else must be. Austerity measures will necessarily lead to rising levels of private debt. And this is exactly what has happened.

Now, if this seems to have very little to do with the way politicians talk about such matters, there's a simple reason: most politicians don’t actually know any of this. A recent survey showed 90 per cent of MPs don't even understand where money comes from (they think it's issued by the Royal Mint). In reality, debt is money. If no one owed anyone anything at all there would be no money and the economy would grind to a halt.

But of course debt has to be owed to someone. These charts show who owes what to whom.

The crisis in private debt

Bearing all this in mind, let's look at those diagrams again - keeping our eye particularly on the dark blue that represents household debt. In the first, 2015 version, the OBR duly noted that there was a substantial build-up of household debt in the years leading up to the crash of 2008. This is significant because it was the first time in British history that total household debts were higher than total household savings, and therefore the household sector itself was in deficit territory. (Corporations, at the same time, were raking in enormous profits.) But it also predicted this wouldn't happen again.

True, the OBR observed, austerity and the reduction of government deficits meant private debt levels would have to go up. However, the OBR economists insisted this wouldn't be a problem because the burden would fall not on households but on corporations. Business-friendly Tory policies would, they insisted, inspire a boom in corporate expansion, which would mean frenzied corporate borrowing (that huge red bulge below the line in the first diagram, which was supposed to eventually replace government deficits entirely). Ordinary households would have little or nothing to worry about.

This was total fantasy. No such frenzied boom took place.

In the second diagram, two years later, the OBR is forced to acknowledge this. Corporations are just raking in the profits and sitting on them. The household sector, on the other hand, is a rolling catastrophe. Austerity has meant falling wages, less government spending on social services (or anything else), and higher de facto taxes. This puts the squeeze on household budgets and people are forced to borrow. As a result, not only are households in overall deficit for the second time in British history, the situation is actually worse than it was in the years leading up to 2008.

And remember: it was a mortgage crisis that set off the 2008 crash, which almost destroyed the world economy and plunged millions into penury. Not a crisis in public debt. A crisis in private debt.

An inquiry

In 2015, around the time the original OBR predictions came out, I wrote an essay in the Guardian predicting that austerity and budget-balancing would create a disastrous crisis in private debt. Now it's so clearly, unmistakably, happening that even the OBR cannot deny it.

I believe the time has come for there be a public investigation - a formal public inquiry, in fact - into how this could be allowed to happen. After the 2008 crash, at least the economists in Treasury and the Bank of England could plausibly claim they hadn't completely understood the relation between private debt and financial instability. Now they simply have no excuse.

What on earth is an institution called the “Office for Budget Responsibility” credulously imagining corporate borrowing binges in order to suggest the government will balance the budget to no ill effects? How responsible is that? Even the second chart is extremely odd. Up to 2017, the top and bottom of the diagram are exact mirrors of one another, as they ought to be. However, in the projected future after 2017, the section below the line is much smaller than the section above, apparently seriously understating the amount both of future government, and future private, debt. In other words, the numbers don't add up.

The OBR told the New Statesman ​that it was not aware of any errors in its 2015 forecast for corporate sector net lending, and that the forecast was based on the available data. It said the forecast for business investment has been revised down because of the uncertainty created by Brexit. 

Still, if the “Office of Budget Responsibility” was true to its name, it should be sounding off the alarm bells right about now. So far all we've got is one mention of private debt and a mild warning about the rise of personal debt from the Bank of England, which did not however connect the problem to austerity, and one fairly strong statement from a maverick columnist in the Daily Mail. Otherwise, silence. 

The only plausible explanation is that institutions like the Treasury, OBR, and to a degree as well the Bank of England can't, by definition, warn against the dangers of austerity, however alarming the situation, because they have been set up the way they have in order to justify austerity. It's important to emphasise that most professional economists have never supported Conservative policies in this regard. The policy was adopted because it was convenient to politicians; institutions were set up in order to support it; economists were hired in order to come up with arguments for austerity, rather than to judge whether it would be a good idea. At present, this situation has led us to the brink of disaster.

The last time there was a financial crash, the Queen famously asked: why was no one able to foresee this? We now have the tools. Perhaps the most important task for a public inquiry will be to finally ask: what is the real purpose of the institutions that are supposed to foresee such matters, to what degree have they been politicised, and what would it take to turn them back into institutions that can at least inform us if we're staring into the lights of an oncoming train?