That high risk economic policy again: ours

by Rob Marchant

Recess. Time for us all to reflect on where we’re at before the elections are upon us. And what will people be wanting to hear on the doorstep this month? That the cuts are awful, and that we’re with them. Right?

Probably.

The idea that we might be taking a risk with this line seems particularly wrong-headed, as the Tories are wrong and we are right on the pure economics of the cuts. KrugmanStiglitz, and other luminaries agree (hmmm, which should we trust, two Nobel prize winners or George Osborne? Let’s think). The trouble is, we are taking a risk. As I have observed before, it is often not so much the economic policy itself, which is essentially right, but our positioning on that policy – the politics – which is risky.

Our approach is risky, perhaps as much as the Tories’, in its way, because it is predicated on the potential for economic disaster from cutting too far, too fast. And, of course, that disaster may not happen or worse, may happen, but not in a way which we can prove. It may be a little early to assume, as Liberal Conspiracy’s Sunny Hundal seems to, that we will be incontrovertibly proved right.

By allowing the two sides of the cuts narrative to dominate our thinking – the negative effect on people on the one hand, and on growth on the other – we miss the future impact. We forget that, while the first is undeniable, it will pass, and that the second may turn out be difficult to prove. And, when faced with the fait accompliof the policy, what then?

Two golden rules of politics, or any struggle for that matter: choose your battles carefully and play for the long-term, not the short.

One problem with opposition is that you campaign heavily against something, which later comes to pass. And, after a short while, it is as if things had always been that way, as the Tories found to their cost. They campaigned against everything: gay rights, an independent bank of England and devolution. Things that nowadays no sensible Tory would dream of trying to reverse, but for which dire consequences were nonetheless predicted. They were then faced with the gritted-teeth reality of looking on, impotent, as these policies were comfortably put in place. They were the perceived losers of the argument. And the dire consequences, of course, never materialised.

It’s not for the faint-hearted, opposition.

Now fast-forward to 2015: barring an unexpected governmental implosion before then, or other act of God, what are the scenarios?

One: slump scenario. Osborne cuts off growth so badly that we are thrown into years of stagnation, like Japan in the 90s. By 2015, Balls is lauded as a genius for reading the runes correctly and Labour takes power. Verdict: unlikely.

Two: everything’s fine scenario. In about a year, Tory policy turns out to have been 100% right. Britain bounces back to economic “business as usual” with minimal damage. Verdict: unlikely.

Three: painful-but-in-the-end-everything’s-fine scenario. The Tories’ big economic gamble, which causes much unnecessary pain early on, pays off politically. Because who can ever prove whether we would have ended up with higher growth under chancellor Balls? Probably we would have, but it’s an irrelevant what-if by then. Everyone goes through a couple of years of hell, perhaps even a double-dip recession, for which Labour is duly blamed. But, at the end of it, the economy returns to normal before five years have elapsed. The Tories claim credit. You can just see their feel-your-pain campaign tagline: “We know it hurt. But it worked”.

Of the three, it is obvious which is the most likely: the last one. But, think about this: if we don’t end up in the slump scenario, as seems likely, we face the electorate not only with our economic model accepted as wrong, but with theirs accepted as right. Which it isn’t. Unpleasant, isn’t it?

So, for us to win the political debate from here, we would need an inordinate amount of luck. The alternative? Move on, or at the very least, do so once these elections are done. The cuts will keep happening and we will comment on them as they affect specific areas, but no more. Don’t let them dominate. Grasp the initiative and move it on to our territory. Health. Education. Law and order. Whatever territory, as long as it’s not the cuts in general, because that is a battle we cannot win.

Or, stick with the our current economic positioning, which is – however much we prefer to call it “betraying the British promise” or the “cost of living crisis”  – centred around the debate on cuts, cuts, cuts.

The ground the Tories want. And, if we have really decided that’s got to be the focus, well, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky?

Rob Marchant is an activist and former Labour Party manager who blogs at The Centre Left.


Tags: , , , , ,


9 Responses to “That high risk economic policy again: ours”

  1. Iain says:

    Very perceptive analysis in this article. What though is a “Labour Party manager”? Is this not what we have lacked?

  2. Romi Gupta says:

    Very good post, and some tough to swallow but likely true statements.

    We need to let the doorstep speak to us not talk at them at this time I feel.

  3. iain ker says:

    *hmmm, which should we trust, two Nobel prize winners or George Osborne? Let’s think)*

    hmmm remind me what Krugman was saying when Captain Insensible was blowing out our budget deficit and ‘lightly’ regulating the banks.

    *And, of course, that disaster may not happen or worse, may happen, but not in a way which we can prove.*

    Yes just imagine how simply awful it would be if the ‘disaster’ didn’t happen.

    TUCLabour – For The People of Britain (But We Wouldn’t Mind The Economy Blowing Up In The Meantime)

  4. william says:

    ‘Our current economic positioning’.A confession from a conference in Washington, not from the Commons.Nobody gets lucky by ommitting the sins of the past.

  5. @Iain: Thanks. For Labour Party manager read “backroom boy”…

    @Romi: Agree. I would very much like us to sit up and pay attention to the voters on the doorstep this April, rather than looking inwards and telling each other earnestly what we want to hear.

  6. @Iain Ker: Oh yes, that tougher banking regulation that the Tories were really pressing for, thanks for reminding me. The calls were deafening.

    @William: I’m not sure I understand your point about Washington?

  7. iain ker says:

    @Rob the Trier: I don’t care what the Tories were or were not calling for.

    You’re falling for The Balls Defence.

    ‘I regret not opposing the Tories more when they kept calling for us to lighten banking regulation’.

    You see, the collapse of the banking system and the economy when TUCLabour were in power was all the Tories’ fault.

  8. @Iain, nice try but, ultimately, tosh. Everyone has admitted that mistake across the political board and across the Western world. Politicians needed to have regulated banks better. So what? It’s a null argument. You, in contrast, are trying to infer the collapse of the international banking system directly to Labour, a position as daft as the one you’re trying (wrongly) to attribute to me.

    I’d have more sympathy with your criticism on the deficit; at least there’s a grain of truth there. I think we spent more than we should have but, even then, were little different from what Tory governments did throughout the 18 years of their last period in office.

    Btw you haven’t yet told me why you think Krugman and Stiglitz (and a bunch of other commentators) are wrong and Osborne is right?

  9. STOP PRESS: I have just read a piece in “A Journey”, written presciently before Ed Milliband’s election as leader, saying more or less the same thing. I have posted it here

Leave a Reply