by Jonathan Todd
The return of the British economy to growth and president Obama to the White House both suggest that Labour will only decisively win the economic argument when it is primarily about the future, not the past.
While welcoming the economy’s recovery, Labour claims output has been foregone due to the government cutting too far, too fast. This frames the economic debate as being about faulty decisions of autumn 2010 by George Osborne and their consequences over the next two years. As much as the celebrated speech of Ed Balls at Bloomberg in August 2010 is vindicated by events over this period, framing the debate in this way invites the question: Why was the government’s fiscal consolidation programme deemed necessary?
Of course, Osborne then cites the reckless profligacy of Labour. Equally obviously, we contend that this programme was unnecessary and the cause of the recession “made in Downing Street”. What may be less apparent is that, no matter how intellectually justified the Bloomberg speech, arguing about past decisions asks the public to reconsider events over which they have a settled mind.
They would have voted differently at the last election were they convinced that Labour had credible and effective plans for public spending. Especially given the pain that government spending decisions have since brought, it is understandable that we find it difficult to concede this. But a strategy for winning the next election predicated upon the electorate reversing a verdict given at the last election rarely works.
