Chris Leslie, the shadow chancellor, supports the pay freeze. But his next boss disagrees. Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Labour at odds over public sector pay freeze

Yvette Cooper, Liz Kendall, Andy Burnham and Jeremy Corbyn are all against the public sector pay freeze. But Harriet Harman and Chris Leslie both back the policy. 

Labour's leadership candidates have all announced their opposition to the continuing public sector pay freeze, putting them on a collision course with Harriet Harman, the party's acting leader, and Chris Leslie, the shadow chancellor.

Andy Burnham, the bookmakers' favourite, was the first candidate to rule out a continuation of the pay freeze, while Liz Kendall also confirmed her opposition to continuing pay restraint at a Q&A in central London this morning. The Kendall campaign believe that they can find the money to end the freeze through reducing the scale of British tax breaks - which currently stand at £100bn a year. 

Yvette Cooper believes that continuing the pay freeze - which has been in place since 2010 - will hit recruitment and retention. "Is the Chancellor really saying he can afford to cut inheritance tax for estates worth £1million," the shadow home secretary asks, "but the people who care for us and keep us safe should have to face five more years of real term pay cuts?" Cooper believes that a decade worth of cuts to public sector pay will do lasting damage to the quality and morale of public sector staff, and that, in any case, that the NHS is increasingly having to turn to more expensive agency staff to fill staffing gaps means the savings are void.

Jeremy Corbyn, meanwhile, is against cuts and will not be supporting the public sector pay freeze. That puts all four candidates in opposition to the policy position set out by Harman and Leslie.

In some respects, the fact that Harman will leave office when the new leader is elected on September 12 renders the row moot. However, Leslie, who is supporting Cooper's bid and is a longstanding ally of the shadow home secretary, was considered likely to remain in post as shadow chancellor should either Cooper or Kendall win the leadership. (Should Burnham win, Rachel Reeves is widely tipped to be appointed both his official deputy, and shadow chancellor, shadowing George Osborne both as Chancellor and as First Secretary of State.) His support of the pay freeze may imperil his chances of keeping hold of the role, or re-open the divides of the first phase of Ed Miliband's leadership, when he and Alan Johnson disagreed over the 50p rate and tuition fees. 

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

Forget planning for no deal. The government isn't really planning for Brexit at all

The British government is simply not in a position to handle life after the EU.

No deal is better than a bad deal? That phrase has essentially vanished from Theresa May’s lips since the loss of her parliamentary majority in June, but it lives on in the minds of her boosters in the commentariat and the most committed parts of the Brexit press. In fact, they have a new meme: criticising the civil service and ministers who backed a Remain vote for “not preparing” for a no deal Brexit.

Leaving without a deal would mean, among other things, dropping out of the Open Skies agreement which allows British aeroplanes to fly to the United States and European Union. It would lead very quickly to food shortages and also mean that radioactive isotopes, used among other things for cancer treatment, wouldn’t be able to cross into the UK anymore. “Planning for no deal” actually means “making a deal”.  (Where the Brexit elite may have a point is that the consequences of no deal are sufficiently disruptive on both sides that the British government shouldn’t  worry too much about the two-year time frame set out in Article 50, as both sides have too big an incentive to always agree to extra time. I don’t think this is likely for political reasons but there is a good economic case for it.)

For the most part, you can’t really plan for no deal. There are however some things the government could prepare for. They could, for instance, start hiring additional staff for customs checks and investing in a bigger IT system to be able to handle the increased volume of work that would need to take place at the British border. It would need to begin issuing compulsory purchases to build new customs posts at ports, particularly along the 300-mile stretch of the Irish border – where Northern Ireland, outside the European Union, would immediately have a hard border with the Republic of Ireland, which would remain inside the bloc. But as Newsnight’s Christopher Cook details, the government is doing none of these things.

Now, in a way, you might say that this is a good decision on the government’s part. Frankly, these measures would only be about as useful as doing your seatbelt up before driving off the Grand Canyon. Buying up land and properties along the Irish border has the potential to cause political headaches that neither the British nor Irish governments need. However, as Cook notes, much of the government’s negotiating strategy seems to be based around convincing the EU27 that the United Kingdom might actually walk away without a deal, so not making even these inadequate plans makes a mockery of their own strategy. 

But the frothing about preparing for “no deal” ignores a far bigger problem: the government isn’t really preparing for any deal, and certainly not the one envisaged in May’s Lancaster House speech, where she set out the terms of Britain’s Brexit negotiations, or in her letter to the EU27 triggering Article 50. Just to reiterate: the government’s proposal is that the United Kingdom will leave both the single market and the customs union. Its regulations will no longer be set or enforced by the European Court of Justice or related bodies.

That means that, when Britain leaves the EU, it will need, at a minimum: to beef up the number of staff, the quality of its computer systems and the amount of physical space given over to customs checks and other assorted border work. It will need to hire its own food and standards inspectors to travel the globe checking the quality of products exported to the United Kingdom. It will need to increase the size of its own regulatory bodies.

The Foreign Office is doing some good and important work on preparing Britain’s re-entry into the World Trade Organisation as a nation with its own set of tariffs. But across the government, the level of preparation is simply not where it should be.

And all that’s assuming that May gets exactly what she wants. It’s not that the government isn’t preparing for no deal, or isn’t preparing for a bad deal. It can’t even be said to be preparing for what it believes is a great deal. 

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.