Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Jeremy Corbyn's policies aren't that different from Ed Miliband's or even New Labour. So why is he being attacked?

For Labour's divided tribes, the question is like the Mirror of Erised: you see what you want in it. 

Jeremy Corbyn has used the Easter recess to announce three policies: universal free school meals for primary pupils, actions to tackle late payments and a £10 minimum wage. As I wrote in today’s morning memo, they tick a lot of positive boxes for an opposition party: they unite the vast majority of the party, both in the country and in Westminster, they pick battles with high-profile enemies, increasing the chances they will be heard of by casual audiences, and they send a message about the type of party that Labour under Corbyn is.

But there’s an interesting box that they don’t all tick: that is, they can’t plausibly be said to represent a radical breach with the Labour party that came before. Universal free school meals were first piloted under the last Labour government and were included in the 2010 Labour manifesto, A Future Fair For All. Action to tackle late payments were included in Britain Can Be Better, Labour’s 2015 manifesto.

The new minimum wage policy is a big breach with New Labour, abandoning their old method of setting the statutory floor using the Low Pay Commission (a tripartite body of business, trade unions and academics), and instead picking a round and therefore-more-campaign-friendly number. But that, again, is more continuity than change with the Ed Miliband era, though the £10 has an advantage over Miliband’s proposed £8 in that it is higher than the government’s proposal. (Miliband’s policy operation was usually fairly sharp, but somehow managed to propose a wage hike that was below what the LPC would have been expected to reach by 2020.)

All of which adds to the feeling that, as I put it this time last year, Corbynism is “turbo-charged Milibandism” or “Milbandism minus dithering”.

Which considering the polls will make Corbynsceptics ask why it is they’ve bothered. That none of Corbyn’s shiny new policies would be out-of-place under, say, Yvette Cooper, adds to the private frustrations of the majority of Labour MPs and the 40 per cent of Labour members who didn’t vote for Corbyn in 2015 or 2016.

For Labour’s divided tribes, the issue is a Rorschach test. For Corbynsceptics, the leader’s unpopularity and his history of radicalism means that even ideas from the mainstream centre-left will struggle to get a hearing. For Corbynites, that even these fairly middle-of-the-road ideas are under attack is why his leadership remains a necessary counterweight to Britain’s rightward drift. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Scotland's vast deficit remains an obstacle to independence

Though the country's financial position has improved, independence would still risk severe austerity. 

For the SNP, the annual Scottish public spending figures bring good and bad news. The good news, such as it is, is that Scotland's deficit fell by £1.3bn in 2016/17. The bad news is that it remains £13.3bn or 8.3 per cent of GDP – three times the UK figure of 2.4 per cent (£46.2bn) and vastly higher than the white paper's worst case scenario of £5.5bn. 

These figures, it's important to note, include Scotland's geographic share of North Sea oil and gas revenue. The "oil bonus" that the SNP once boasted of has withered since the collapse in commodity prices. Though revenue rose from £56m the previous year to £208m, this remains a fraction of the £8bn recorded in 2011/12. Total public sector revenue was £312 per person below the UK average, while expenditure was £1,437 higher. Though the SNP is playing down the figures as "a snapshot", the white paper unambiguously stated: "GERS [Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland] is the authoritative publication on Scotland’s public finances". 

As before, Nicola Sturgeon has warned of the threat posed by Brexit to the Scottish economy. But the country's black hole means the risks of independence remain immense. As a new state, Scotland would be forced to pay a premium on its debt, resulting in an even greater fiscal gap. Were it to use the pound without permission, with no independent central bank and no lender of last resort, borrowing costs would rise still further. To offset a Greek-style crisis, Scotland would be forced to impose dramatic austerity. 

Sturgeon is undoubtedly right to warn of the risks of Brexit (particularly of the "hard" variety). But for a large number of Scots, this is merely cause to avoid the added turmoil of independence. Though eventual EU membership would benefit Scotland, its UK trade is worth four times as much as that with Europe. 

Of course, for a true nationalist, economics is irrelevant. Independence is a good in itself and sovereignty always trumps prosperity (a point on which Scottish nationalists align with English Brexiteers). But if Scotland is to ever depart the UK, the SNP will need to win over pragmatists, too. In that quest, Scotland's deficit remains a vast obstacle. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.