A tale of three credibilities

20th January, 2012 1:09 pm

Yes, you guessed right, another article on the Balls U-turn in addition to the fifty-odd you’ve no doubt already read since the weekend, and though I share the same disbelief and anger as Len McCluskey, Owen Jones and scores of other people who have made their feelings known these past few days, I’d like to raise an issue which has been thus far neglected but one that is fairly central to understanding the policy shift that we have just made and what other alternatives were – and still are – available.

‘Credibility’ is a word that has been thrown about a lot recently, but in the rush to regain it Miliband and Balls appear to have conflated at least three different meanings of the word which can and should be understood as being separate from one another. A lack of credibility on the economy cannot simply be boiled down to a lack of credibility on the deficit, just like you cannot infer from a lack of credibility on the deficit that the only solution is to cave into the coalition on cuts.

That we lack credibility on the economy is fairly clear. There is plenty of polling data showing Miliband/Balls trailing a few points behind Cameron/Osborne/Clegg on who is best trusted to run the economy but what is less clear, however, is that we lack credibility on the economy because we are seen to be deficit deniers. Though the odd poll does show narrow support for the government’s approach to deficit reduction, it is one thing for respondents to agree to the general idea of cuts but quite another for them to be happy with heartless (and mindless) cuts to the benefits of their disabled friends and family; the scrapping of their children’s much-lauded EMA and ‘efficiencies’ at their local hospital, all of which, according to Balls, we would not seek to reverse. And, as Liberal Conspiracy’s analysis of YouGov polling data shows, public opinion – particularly amongst crucial Lib Dem voters –was swinging behind our (former) approach to deficit reduction, even as recently as December – making Balls’ new year’s resolution all the more perplexing. A few limited and not well-publicised nor much campaigned-upon proposals aside, we have yet to propose an alternative to the austerity that we have (at least until last weekend) been attacking. It is this lack of a coherent agenda that is at the hart of our lack of economic credibility.

Even if, despite this, we accept that our lack of credibility on the economy essentially boils down to a lack of credibility on the deficit it is yet another huge and largely unsupported leap of faith to accept this means that the solution is to embrace all the cuts that have hitherto been made. Even Standard & Poor’s warned after the rash of credit rating downgrades last week that “a reform process based on a pillar of fiscal austerity alone risks becoming self-defeating.” Consolidating our national finances requires a mix of cuts, tax increases on those who can afford to pay more and investment in our existing capital – including investing in our human capital, as opposed to launching an assault upon it. We can be credible on the deficit without capitulating to the Tories on cuts and if take a lead on this we might get some support from unexpected places, as the S&P announcement shows.

Another important issue here is with whom we are supposed to lack credibility. I see another discredited New Labour tendency creeping back in here: tailoring policy to what we think are the concerns of a archetypal middle England voter and pissing off large chunks of our natural supporters in the process. I’m sure there are voters who think us not credible on the deficit and who think we need to make cuts, but there are far more – running into the millions – people who are looking for a party to have the guts to stand up for them as they face the most comprehensive onslaught on their quality of life they have ever known and who will baulk at the sight of the party of working people pledging to keep the coalition’s cuts. They may not necessarily go and vote for someone else but if they feel sufficiently uninspired to turn out to vote it will make it very difficult for us to return to power in 2015. This reminds me of the Thick of It episode in which Hugh Abbott launches an ultimately disastrous policy off the back of a sole supposedly “solid middle England” focus group participant, to which Tucker retorts “so middle England is a huge fucking field, with one woman stood in it?”

Our biggest problem now is inconsistency: and that is where the danger of credibility lies. However haltingly, Miliband and Balls appear to be trying to get the notion of responsible, ethical capitalism and the idea that government should be on the side of the hard-working ‘producers’ onto the agenda yet at the same time have accepted the need for cuts – which hitherto have been focused on the most vulnerable in society through cuts to disability benefits and on our dedicated public sector workers via wage freezes and pension reform – in order to clean up the mess caused in party by the irresponsibility of the financial sector. If that’s not the definition of a contradiction, then I don’t know what is.

Just as confusingly, we have now put ourselves in the position of pledging not to reverse any cuts if we return to power yet at the same time arguing that cuts are being made are “too far and too fast”, as a number of our frontbenchers have tried and failed to do this week. There’s a fairly boring debate to be had about whether that is actually a contradiction or just an apparent one, but whatever the case, our message will look contradictory and confused to the average voter, particularly when conveyed via a media not known for its attention to detail nor dedication to nuance or subtlety.

These are both huge and potentially very destructive inconsistencies that are the real threat to our credibility as a government-in-waiting. In trying to be credible on the deficit we run the risk of being credible on nothing at all.

Dan Heap is a doctoral candidate in social policy at the University of Edinburgh. He tweets as @commentdan.

  • Anonymous

    Dan, Our dear friend John Rentoul had an excuse for Balls in his endless blog this morning:

    http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/01/19/the-ed-balls-show/

    After describing him as the most “impressive intellect” in the shadow cabinet, he ends up  by saying this great intellect didn’t say what he meant!. You’ll see in the final paragraph – I thought an impressive intellect would have said what he meant, but obviously Mr Rentoul was feeling kind when he wrote.

    • Anonymous

      I am not a sadist, so to save anyone else having to read through Rentoul’s tedious drivel here is the relevant paragraph:

      “My view now is that Balls made a mistake of over-emphatic wording in his interview. “Instead of saying, “We are going to have keep all these cuts,” he meant to say, “We cannot promise to reverse any of these cuts.” That was what he told the Shadow Cabinet in advance, which was partly a statement of the obvious, that the Coalition’s spending cuts will have been made by 2015, and partly a statement of intent usually made by a responsible opposition”

      (The rest of his nonsense is mainly about a “hilarious” anecdote told by Balls – be careful, read it at your own risk – there might not be a dry seat in the house)

      • Anonymous

        Your humanity in sparing us the chore is touching Alan.

  • http://twitter.com/Newsbot9 Newsbot9

    “Natural” supporters? Many of whom won’t vote for Labour unless they go back to the left, you mean? The “mysteriously” dropping Labour vote (more than enough to win an election…)

    It’s another lurch to the right. That’s all.

Latest

  • Featured News Unions Anti-trade union legislation could face legal challenge for contravening human rights

    Anti-trade union legislation could face legal challenge for contravening human rights

    Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper is ready to raise the prospect of challenging the Tories’ proposed anti-trade union laws in the courts, claiming it might contravene human rights legislation. Cooper says she has received legal advice that points to potential breaches of Article 11 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which preserves the right of freedom of association, including trade unions. The leadership contender will accuse the Conservatives of trying to use their position to cripple the opposition with […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Labour have been “in denial” about threat from UKIP, says Dan Jarvis

    Labour have been “in denial” about threat from UKIP, says Dan Jarvis

    Dan Jarvis has slammed Labour for being “in denial” about the threat caused by UKIP, in a new report published this weekend. ‘Reconnecting Labour’, which was commissioned by Andy Burnham in July as part of his campaign to become leader, looks specifically at how Labour wins back votes lost to the anti-EU party. Jarvis raises concerns that the EU referendum a new high-profile platform that could cause further problems for Labour. He says that Labour were too relaxed about the […]

    Read more →
  • Comment The Labour leadership contest: too much politics and not enough personality

    The Labour leadership contest: too much politics and not enough personality

    Our recent prime ministers were not elected to lead their parties following general election defeats, and there are many problems with electing leaders whilst on the rebound. One of the biggest is that everyone is still in General Election Mode, presenting manifestos rather than their qualities as a leader. Policies and ideas are not wedded to any one person – any candidate could institute a policy suggested by any other candidate. Having good ideas qualifies one for the top table, […]

    Read more →
  • Comment What lessons does Lynton Crosby have for Labour?

    What lessons does Lynton Crosby have for Labour?

    After May’s general election, it appeared everyone in the party who tweeted or blogged was sure they knew why Labour had lost. By some weird coincidence, these opinions always seemed to mirror the prejudices of the author. You know the type of thing – our policies were too right wing, our policies were too left wing, our policies were too centrist, etc. Not very enlightening. So, to get a more balanced view, I turned to Lynton Crosby. I appreciate that’s […]

    Read more →
  • Featured News Labour is in “mortal danger” – “we need to save it again”, says Peter Mandelson

    Labour is in “mortal danger” – “we need to save it again”, says Peter Mandelson

    Peter Mandelson has argued that Labour is in “mortal danger” . In an article in the Financial Times (£), the former cabinet minister and Labour campaigns director has warned against a Jeremy Corbyn victory. If the Islington North MP wins the leadership election, “that would be a very bad outcome for anyone who cares about fairness in our society or Britain’s place in the world”, Mandelson writes. Mandelson has called for a tightening of the rules over the leadership election […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit