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

  • News Seats and Selections Geoffrey Robinson u-turns on retirement – he’s standing again on May 7th

    Geoffrey Robinson u-turns on retirement – he’s standing again on May 7th

    In recent days there were reports that Geoffrey Robinson was set to step down as MP for Coventry North West (at incredibly short notice), with Miliband aide Greg Beales reportedly a frontrunner for the seat. Then yesterday, reports emerged that Robinson might have had a change of heart, and could stay on as MP. An emergency meeting of Coventry North West CLP had been called for this evening, but LabourList understands this was cancelled early this afternoon, when local members […]

    Read more →
  • Video 36 years later – Michael Foot’s speech on the vote of no confidence

    36 years later – Michael Foot’s speech on the vote of no confidence

    As Scottish Labour’s latest video shows, it’s 36 years since Jim Callaghan’s government was brought down with a vote of no confidence. This was won by one vote, in which the SNP supported Margaret Thatcher and the Tories. Here’s Michael Foot’s speech from this day:

    Read more →
  • Comment The Tories won’t deliver a 7-day a week NHS, they’ll cut it

    The Tories won’t deliver a 7-day a week NHS, they’ll cut it

    With forty days to go, David Cameron is desperate to run away from his dismal record on the NHS. After five years in Downing Street, he stood in Manchester today and had the cheek to make all the same promises on a seven-day NHS. No-one will be taken in by it. People know that not only did this Government not deliver a seven-day NHS, they spent five years taking it backwards. It’s now harder to get a GP appointment from Monday to […]

    Read more →
  • News Video Scottish Labour’s latest video: 36 years today since the SNP voted with the Tories to bring down Callaghan’s government

    Scottish Labour’s latest video: 36 years today since the SNP voted with the Tories to bring down Callaghan’s government

    Today it is 36 years since Jim Callaghan’s government was brought down by a vote of no confidence, resulting in the general election months later that brought Margaret Thatcher to power. The government lost the vote to the Conservatives by one – 310 to 311.  Scottish Labour have produced a video showing that the 11 SNPs at the time voted with Thatcher, helping to usher in 18 years of a Tory government. Here’s the video in full  

    Read more →
  • Featured Labour demand explanation for Tories’ proposed disability cuts

    Labour demand explanation for Tories’ proposed disability cuts

    A document has been leaked revealing which benefits the Tories are considering scrapping. This is part of the £12bn cut to the welfare budget they would implement by 2017/18 if they were to win May. It suggests that disability benefits and a regional benefits cap would be at the top of the list. The BBC have found that the document, prepared by civil servants at the request of the Conservative party, suggests restricting the number of people eligible to claim […]

    Read more →
Share with your friends










Submit