You say cutback, we say fightback

I went to the Fabians 2012 Conference yesterday to speak and listen*.

Of course, the session was dominated by Ed Balls speech. As part of my commitment to not being fat, I force myslf to Eltham every Saturday morning to do the Greenwich Parkrun**, so missed the actual presence, hovering instead like a virtual spectre. Naturally I’m bit mystified by the rending of garments of some. What exactly do they expect a Labour government in 2015 to do? Come in and say, You know that decision taken two years back. Right, we’re starting with unpicking that?

I think what the complaints represent is an insufficiency of anger. These cuts are horrid, goes the cry. You are supposed to be anti-horrid, and pro-good, you tell us all the time that you dislike horrid and prefer good, so why are you now saying you’re going to eat a nice bowl of horrid pie, when there’s this big bowl of good stew sitting right there, over by the SWP pamphlets.

the trouble with this approach is that it doesn’t knit it anywhere with what a labour government is going to face, when it comes into office. Come 2015, Ed Balls will wander into the Treasury, plonk himself down by the desk and open up a note from George Osborne. That note will say something like this:

“Ed, Sorry, there’s still no money left. Yours, George”

That’s what the next Labour government will inherit. We might have spent the intervening years grinding our teeth with frustration at the idiocies perpetrated by the buffoons of the current administration, wailing at their stupidity and pointing out how we wouldn’t have started from here, but at some point we will need to start from there. That’s what winning an election is. A starting from here, no matter how much you wish you weren’t.

So what might the 2015 May morning look like? In truth , we don’t know entirely. We can make a reasonable guess. Unemployment will still be high, perhaps. Living standards will be depressed. We may be told that the aim of reducing the structural deficit is going to be missed, and that there is growth in the economy, albeit of a sluggish and anemic sort.  Whatever the world does look like the essential job of the new government will be to address those issues, not the challenges of 2012.

We might need to put more money into a National Infrastructure plan, for example, which will mean further tightness on spending in services. Or we may decide any extra tax income we get should go into fixing the mess that Universal Credit has become, not reversing caps on Housing Benefit (which may not even exist by 2015). Whatever challenge the next Labour government faces, whatever choices it seeks to make, it will, inevitably, be starting from the point the Coalition leaves office. “Accepting cuts” simply means knowing that you start in government by dealing with the consequences of the accumulated decisions of the last lot. You might not like it, but you start from there.

That’s the logical answer. But there’s another, more political reason why a “No pledge to reverse cuts” position has to be taken. To demonstrate this point without drawing the ire of colleague to my left, I shall indulge in a bit of friendly fire.  Somewhere in the bowels of CCHQ, a Tory researcher is looking at Jim Murphy’s announcement on accepting lots of defence cuts. He perhaps has beside him outraged articles by left wingers about the heartlessness of this decision. He is staring at it, trying to work something out. Perhaps as he stares, he adjusts his pocket square, or fiddles with his prince-nez. He may twirl his watch fob. However he prefers to muse, at some point a light is going to switch on, and he’s going to realise that if you look at them squintwise and widdershins, they’re a spending pledge.

We’re accepting some of the cuts, see. That assumes we’re going to not accept others. Subtract one from the other, and you have an unfunded spending commitment that can go right into the pile marked “Labour’s tax bombshell”***.  Hosannah, the CCHQ staffer will cry, as he goes to pick up the phone to Matt Hancock, humming an aria to himself at the simple pleasures of the world.

This is how Tories win elections.

They mark out all the things we say we dislike, or think are terrible, or that we have gone onto Newsnight to denounce with fiery passion or a little tremelo in our voices, and they write them down in a little book. They assign numbers to all these things.  They add those numbers up. Then, as an election approaches, they approach the voter with the regretful manner of a Maitre’D in a posh restaurant who fears a regular customer has been consorting with a disreputable type. They say “Ma’am, the charming gentleman at the Bar has been ordering caviar and champagne on your behalf, on your account. They are excellent choices, but thought it best to check if he had sought your permission to do so. If not, I can arrange for him to be escorted discreetly from the premises. Ah, I understand. Most unfortunate. I shall ensure he does not bother you again”.

To stop that from happening, a potential Labour government has to be absolutely blazingly crystal clear what it will and won’t spend taxpayer’s money on. In essence, this isn’t a question of how big the bill should be. Even if you want Cocktails, Beluga, and an Omelette Rothschild, you don’t want to be landed with a tab for six bottles of Yquem that you’d quite have liked but decided to forgo so you could have a martini or two.  I favour restraint for its own sake, but as a matter of practical politics, Labour should make no commitments now, even if it ultimately decides the right thing to do is to splash out.

All this means Ed Balls and Ed Miliband are dead right to draw a line under the spending pledges. We will be where the Tories leave us, and we have to deal with that. What’s more, if we aren’t utterly clear, every sigh of dismay at their stupidity will be translated into a bill.  That won’t be what we will do, never has been what we would do, so it’s best if we say so clearly.

After all, it’s the only way to start the fightback. Why, because the fightback should be about the really interesting issue: What we can do better from May 8 2015 onwards.

 

*The speaking bit went quite well I think. At one point I teetered on the edge of getting a round of applause for capitalism, social democratic variety, but then lost my train of thought and the moment was lost).

**Creditably, since you ask. 18th in 22.50. Not a PB, but it was cold and frosty underfoot. A post Christmas improvement

***Sorry Jim, but they’re not dumb, They were going to work it out in the end. Hammond’s going to stand up at next Defence Questions and do you on this, so best you’re prepared, eh?