George Osborne presents the red box to cameras. Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

George Osborne has made a big gamble - Labour must make sure he pays for it

Amidst the noise about a living wage and the Labour leadership race, George Osborne has left a big hostage to fortune. Labour must hold him to it.

Budget time, and the aftermath, is horrible for opposition staffers. 

Endless meetings with politicians asking ‘what do we expect in the budget’ and evenings drafting multiple briefings just in case of each plausible scenario. A day locked in a stuffy shadow cabinet room on neo-lithic laptops, neck deep in crisps and biscuits poring over budget documents. 

Days afterwards of impatient journalists demanding stories about it falling apart and endless talk of rabbits, shot foxes and gamechangers. This budget will have been no different. 

The brains of the operation are the same as at my first budget in 2011. John Wrathmell, Ali Moussavi and Maighread McCloskey can skin and fillet a budget with their eyes closed. They are the brightest of all the bright people at Labour headquarters. 

But the consequence of Labour's leadership hiatus is that for all the chatter about increases to the minimum wage a significant gamble George Osborne has taken has been missed.

I used to spend time gently suggesting to Shadow Cabinet colleagues that their quote on an obscure new tax break could wait while we made sure there was a single clear and coherent budget response from Labour. 

This time, Harriet Harman and Chris Leslie have as usual done a hugely professional job. But as an unavoidable consequence of a leadership election each of the candidates has also responded. So Labour’s response will seem fuzzy to both media and electorate. 

That presented an opportunity for George Osborne. Budgets always have fireworks - under which the Chancellor could have hoped to bury the scale of the bad news. He could have taken significantly tougher decisions than his targets required of him and thus left himself space to cope with the inevitable events that a Chancellor has to face. 

Instead he made what could be a defining decision of this Parliament - and of his career. 

He has still made some highly controversial and in my view unpleasant choices. But overall he has slowed the pace of deficit reduction to the point where even on his old fiscal mandate of a current surplus by 2017/8 he is only just meeting it. This is the mandate which until the planned vote in the autumn remains legally binding. 

Indeed – he is only meeting it because of his stealth tax rises including on pensions’ contributions, energy bills and insurance premiums. Despite having disavowed the need for any tax rises pre-election. 

Contrast this with June 2010 when he scrapped EMA, raised £12bn from VAT and in total announced £40bn in fiscal tightening by 2014/15. As a result when, in the face of events, he relaxed some of this he had bought himself the space to do so. And had left flexibility in his fiscal rules to get away with it. 

This time whilst broadly sticking to his plan of an absolute surplus within this Parliament he has used up almost all of the wiggle room he had booked in at the March budget. 

The new fiscal charter he intends to legislate for requires him to have an absolute surplus in 2019/20 - a specific date which is at least a change from any of his various fiscal plans in the last Parliament. 

Yet following yesterday’s budget he is projected to only just achieve surplus in that year of £10 billion. That may feel like a lot but over four years there are many ways things could go wrong. 

First, finding £17bn from departmental spending may sound less dramatic than the £41bn suggested in the March budget. But protecting defence, schools and DfiD spending – and adding £8bn to health spending – means the spending review and actually delivering it will be very tough. Not least as the services – social care, the police, sure start – most directly in the firing line have already borne the brunt over five years. 

Furthermore the OBR has highlighted the revenue risk of his tax raising measures. Greece and China are competing to be the most worrying economic headwind. And with productivity and exports being revised down further how confident can the Chancellor be of even the current anaemic growth forecasts for the coming years?   

If any or all of those things do go wrong then tax revenues will not deliver, welfare will overshoot and at some point George Osborne will be back in the commons asking people to vote for his fifth (yes, fifth) “long term” fiscal framework in two Parliaments. No doubt he will seek to make a virtue of it by claiming yet again to be laying a 'trap' for Labour. 

Clearly, the reverse could also happen. Jonathan Portes has pointed out that before a recession economic forecasters often under-estimate the coming shortfall in growth – but in recovery they often under-estimate the bounce back. 

If that latter happens then ‘Lucky General Osborne’ may find he can deliver his plans with room to spare. 

I suspect that George Osborne thinks that that is likely. That would explain the Tory kitchen sink approach to their manifesto with more than £20bn in unaccounted for spending commitments. And it would explain him leaving so little room for error in meeting the surplus he is now legislating for.

A political journalist pointed out to me this week that George Osborne’s former adviser Rupert Harrison was always keen when setting such targets to leave a bit of flexibility for the inevitable events which are the curse of politicians. 

In March I took a photo of our budget team in the Shadow Cabinet room knowing it would be my last there. I hoped it would also be George Osborne's last. I wonder if Rupert did the same knowing that whatever the result he was going to leave the Treasury. 

And I wonder whether he’s taken the Chancellor’s ‘luck’ with him. If so then something - tax cuts, two per cent of GDP defence spending, the NHS or his fiscal targets - will have to give. 

The job of the next Labour leader will be to make him pay for it. I can promise - having worked on the 2012 Omnishambles budget - that no matter how successful they are it won't be enough to win the next election on its own. And that their staff will still hate every minute of budget week.  

Karim Palant was head of policy to Ed Balls. 

Getty
Show Hide image

Labour's establishment suspects a Momentum conspiracy - they're right

Bernie Sanders-style organisers are determined to rewire the party's machine.  

If you wanted to understand the basic dynamics of this year’s Labour leadership contest, Brighton and Hove District Labour Party is a good microcosm. On Saturday 9 July, a day before Angela Eagle was to announce her leadership bid, hundreds of members flooded into its AGM. Despite the room having a capacity of over 250, the meeting had to be held in three batches, with members forming an orderly queue. The result of the massive turnout was clear in political terms – pro-Corbyn candidates won every position on the local executive committee. 

Many in the room hailed the turnout and the result. But others claimed that some in the crowd had engaged in abuse and harassment.The national party decided that, rather than first investigate individuals, it would suspend Brighton and Hove. Add this to the national ban on local meetings and events during the leadership election, and it is easy to see why Labour seems to have an uneasy relationship with mass politics. To put it a less neutral way, the party machine is in a state of open warfare against Corbyn and his supporters.

Brighton and Hove illustrates how local activists have continued to organise – in an even more innovative and effective way than before. On Thursday 21 July, the week following the CLP’s suspension, the local Momentum group organised a mass meeting. More than 200 people showed up, with the mood defiant and pumped up.  Rather than listen to speeches, the room then became a road test for a new "campaign meetup", a more modestly titled version of the "barnstorms" used by the Bernie Sanders campaign. Activists broke up into small groups to discuss the strategy of the campaign and then even smaller groups to organise action on a very local level. By the end of the night, 20 phonebanking sessions had been planned at a branch level over the following week. 

In the past, organising inside the Labour Party was seen as a slightly cloak and dagger affair. When the Labour Party bureaucracy expelled leftwing activists in past decades, many on went further underground, organising in semi-secrecy. Now, Momentum is doing the exact opposite. 

The emphasis of the Corbyn campaign is on making its strategy, volunteer hubs and events listings as open and accessible as possible. Interactive maps will allow local activists to advertise hundreds of events, and then contact people in their area. When they gather to phonebank in they will be using a custom-built web app which will enable tens of thousands of callers to ring hundreds of thousands of numbers, from wherever they are.

As Momentum has learned to its cost, there is a trade-off between a campaign’s openness and its ability to stage manage events. But in the new politics of the Labour party, in which both the numbers of interested people and the capacity to connect with them directly are increasing exponentially, there is simply no contest. In order to win the next general election, Labour will have to master these tactics on a much bigger scale. The leadership election is the road test. 

Even many moderates seem to accept that the days of simply triangulating towards the centre and getting cozy with the Murdoch press are over. Labour needs to reach people and communities directly with an ambitious digital strategy and an army of self-organising activists. It is this kind of mass politics that delivered a "no" vote in Greece’s referendum on the terms of the Eurozone bailout last summer – defying pretty much the whole of the media, business and political establishment. 

The problem for Corbyn's challenger, Owen Smith, is that many of his backers have an open problem with this type of mass politics. Rather than investigate allegations of abuse, they have supported the suspension of CLPs. Rather than seeing the heightened emotions that come with mass mobilisations as side-effects which needs to be controlled, they have sought to joins unconnected acts of harassment, in order to smear Jeremy Corbyn. The MP Ben Bradshaw has even seemed to accuse Momentum of organising a conspiracy to physically attack Labour MPs.

The real conspiracy is much bigger than that. Hundreds of thousands of people are arriving, enthusiastic and determined, into the Labour party. These people, and their ability to convince the communities of which they are a part, threaten Britain’s political equilibrium, both the Conservatives and the Labour establishment. When the greatest hope for Labour becomes your greatest nightmare, you have good call to feel alarmed.