Every government has bad times – but this feels worse…

26th April, 2012 3:33 pm

There’s something vaguely reassuring about discovering that extreme combinations of adverse events immediately before elections don’t just happen to Labour governments.

My memory of each April/May in successive years of our period in government was of a tentative Labour recovery in the first quarter being blown out of the water during April by “events”, thus turning retreat in the local elections on the first Thursday in May into rout. Straight afterwards, the PLP would perform its traditional panic and plot manoeuvre and a bad situation would turn into an early summer death spiral: PM does badly in election, PLP plot and panic, polls go down even more, PLP plots and panics even more… etc.

The most spectacular example of this was 2006 when we had the perfect storm hit in mid-campaign. In late April in the space of a couple of days Health Secretary Pat Hewitt was booed by the conference of one of the nursing unions, Deputy PM John Prescott’s fling with his secretary was made public, and most damaging of all Home Secretary Charles Clarke was embroiled in a scandal over the release without deportation of foreign prisoners. The three events were conflated by the media into an overall story about the wheels coming off Blair’s government. Labour went on to lose 319 councillors and control of 17 councils.

Something similar seems to have hit the Tories in the last few days. But the nature of the crises hitting the Tories one after another is of a different order of magnitude, more existential, than the mere bad news that hit Labour in 2006. The Murdoch revelations or allegations about Jeremy Hunt I would put just in the bad news for the Government column. They are about one minister’s poor judgement, and a systemic problem of the relationship between News International and all UK governments, but this is not an issue which by itself would massively affect voting behaviour. But it’s still a huge story which destroys any effort by Cameron to say he represents a new way of doing politics, and combined with two other events creates an impression of a Government in meltdown.

The two other “events” are more fundamental in that they hit voters’ pocketbooks and indicate flawed economic thinking at the heart of everything this Government stands for, at the same time as vindicating Labour’s economic stance, which had hitherto been derided.

First, we have the long, rumbling aftershock from probably the most politically inept Budget of recent memory. This is like Labour’s 2007 alienation of its core vote with the 10p tax rate abolition, but more so, because there are a whole host of deeply alienating measures that Osborne has dreamt up, from the “granny tax” to the attack on charitable giving. Some still haven’t risen up the political agenda to the extent they will in future as they hit people in the pocket, such as the changes to tax credits for the poorest that will drive people out of part-time work and onto the dole, and the changes to child benefit for the best off that cut one of the few ties that bind the upper middle classes to the welfare state, and destroy the principle established in the early 1990s of taxation of individuals rather than couples.

Then there is the mother of all pre-mid-term-election “events” – the country slipping back into the double-dip recession Labour had warned that the Coalition’s extreme approach to deficit reduction would lead to. Not only is this bad news for people who will lose their jobs or have their hours cut, it makes deficit reduction even tougher as it reduces the tax being generated. Everything Labour said before and since the election about deficit reduction being too far and too fast suddenly makes sense to a whole swathe of sceptical voters. Everything Osborne, Cameron, Clegg and Alexander predicated their economic and political strategy on – a fast clearing of the deficit and a return to growth by the next election – suddenly looks unachievable and the product of collective delusional belief in pre-Keynesian flat-earth economics. They trashed our public services and it didn’t make our economic situation better, it made it worse.

It also means Labour can now unite around Ed Balls’ economic strategy – well-meaning and intelligent efforts from within our own ranks to argue for a more fiscally hawkish approach by Labour are redundant in light of a double-dip recession – the Balls approach to the deficit is demonstrably now the one that makes most sense.

In this context the elections on May 3rd have the potential to be a turkey shoot – a cull of Tory and Lib Dem councillors that will do lasting damage to their activist base (people who lose their council seats tend to become less active and hence weaken the General Election machine of the affected parties), cause strife, panic and plotting with and between both Coalition parties, and give Labour the chance to demonstrate it can govern effectively at a local level across wide areas of the country.

But to happen, a turkey shoot needs participants. This turkey shoot has Tory and Lib Dem turkeys, it needs all of us on the Labour side to pick up our political guns and start shooting. That runs from the frontbenchers through the council leaders to the grassroots member toying with delivering leaflets or helping on polling day. We’ll only convert this huge opportunity into reality if everyone gets stuck in.

It promises to be an exciting week between now and polling day.

Value our free and unique service?

LabourList has more readers than ever before - but we need your support. Our dedicated coverage of Labour's policies and personalities, internal debates, selections and elections relies on donations from our readers.

If you can support LabourList’s unique and free service then please click here.

To report anything from the comment section, please e-mail [email protected]
  • Redshift

    We’ve got our guns loaded in my patch! 

  • RedSetter

    Like an anorexic the Coalition seems to believe that an already underweight country can starve itself back to health: sadly many, many more people will have to suffer terribly before they are forced to admit that they are wrong.

    • Bill Lockhart

       Whereas Labour believes in economic bulimia- uncontrolled consumption of obscene quantities of un-earned, borrowed money, quickly vomited wastefully away with no lasting benefits and leading to  multiple organ failure and systemic collapse.

  • ThePurpleBooker

    I wouldn’t attack the “fiscal hawkishness”, Luke. In 2015, there will be an evenr higher deficit because of the Tories’ mess and we will have to make it clear to people that we will have to cut it and we still have to make it clear that running up irresponsible deficits isn’t progressive when you can be spending that money on police, the NHS, SureStart centres, schools and even tax cuts to boost growth.

    • Trudge74 as alexwilliamz

      Sigh! You really don’t get it do you?

      • ThePurpleBooker

        I’m sorry but if we were to promise loads of spending in 2015 not only we will lose but we will be lying and falling into a ‘tax and spend’ agenda. I don’t think YOU quite get it!

        • We don’t need to have a ‘tax and spend agenda’ to tax or to spend more than this.

          If we don’t, a Labour government would see no recovery, and that could make things worse again.

          The priority must be on jobs (preferably private sector) and spending (i.e. getting wages back up again) in the real economy (i.e. what we might term ‘private spending’). These should be our yardsticks. I think we should be open minded about how we achieve them.

          •  One might, for example, tax more to provide a tax break to businesses – and guarantee stronger union recruiting and negotiating rights to improve the subsequent wages. Just an example.

  • Dan McCurry

    Don’t underestimate the Hunt business. It has the potential to bring down a government. Not least because the media will not let it go. If Cameron has favoured the Murdoch empire, without showing favour to other companies, then he will be punished. 

    • aracataca

      Dan-How? What scenario are you envisaging?  

      • Dan McCurry

        Hunt is a wafer thin human shield to David Cameron. 
        The allegation is that in return for good press coverage Cameron sold policy to Rupert Murdoch, allowing that man to dictate that Ofcom should be abolished and that the BBC should be severely cut back. 
        Cameron was willing to attack British institutions at the beck and call of the Murdochs, then face the world and tell them that the £14b deal to buy Sky was being managed with integrity. 

        If this is the case then that is a big lie!

        What are the editors of the Mail and Telegraph to make of that? What are the people to make of it, when the Prime Minister has been made a liar? Can he be believed on anything else, if he has been publicly proven to be a liar?This is why the stakes are big for Cameron. 

        • aracataca

          No argument- but bring down the government?

          • I haven’t read the article but I heard Polly Toynbee came to the same conclusion in the Guardian today.

            The scenario described by Dan above chimes with the assumptions of many. Certainly Murdoch would want/expect something in return for his support for the Tories. And from James Murdoch’s speech at the Edinburgh TV Festival* and the attempted aquisition, there can be no doubt about what that might be.

            If true, all that is needed is one weak link or one revelatory slip-up and Cameron will go down like a ton of bricks.

            *http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/aug/28/james-murdoch-bbc-mactaggart-edinburgh-tv-festival

          • TomFairfax

            Realistically all that would happen is the government will be weakened, or DC forced to change significant figures in his cabinet to satisfy his back benchers, which may result in the same thing.

            Just take Theresa May’s statement in parliament last week. Fifty nine speakers and maybe two actually supportive of her, and no senior colleagues showing even moral support.

            Hunt meanwhile gets the full PM protection treatment and is clearly culpable, and the protection will damage the PM, as evidenced by the Torygraph’s Peter Oborne’s comments on radio. Comments more aggressively anti-government that the other talking head in the show from a nominally centre left stance.

            DC and GO are clearly becoming isolated within their own party. Bad council election results could result in the Tory back benchers showing their usual lack of mettle when under pressure.

        • carolekins

          The Tories’ attack on Ofcom also aimed at pleasing Murdoch.  Cameron is definitely in the firing line, with his links to Brooks and Coulson.  Cameron’s face graphically showed his unease when Hunt was making his statement.

      • Dan McCurry

        Hunt is a wafer thin human shield to David Cameron. 
        The allegation is that in return for good press coverage Cameron sold policy to Rupert Murdoch, allowing that man to dictate that Ofcom should be abolished and that the BBC should be severely cut back. 
        Cameron was willing to attack British institutions at the beck and call of the Murdochs, then face the world and tell them that the £14b deal to buy Sky was being managed with integrity. 

        If this is the case then that is a big lie!

        What are the editors of the Mail and Telegraph to make of that? What are the people to make of it, when the Prime Minister has been made a liar? Can he be believed on anything else, if he has been publicly proven to be a liar?This is why the stakes are big for Cameron. 

  • madasafish

     Everything Labour said before and since the election about deficit reduction being too far and too fast suddenly makes sense to a whole swathe of sceptical voters”

    Since the Coalition have hardly made ANY reduction in the annual deficit…

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#zoomed-picture 

    the article really does not get past first base…

    • Brumanuensis

      Amazing isn’t it. Labour says that excessively rapid attempts at fiscal consolidation could be counter-productive and lo, the Chancellor has to revise his borrowing estimates upwards.

x

LabourList Daily Email

Everything Labour. Every weekday morning

Share with your friends










Submit