There’s only one thing in the news that matters

By David Beeson

It may seem hard to believe, but all that noise about bullying or not bullying wasn’t really the most significant political event of the weekend. The row was just a lot of froth to distract from something much more far-reaching. Fortunately, when the dust settles, the froth will be gone and the substance will remain.

That was Gordon Brown’s speech “A future fair for all“. Why? Because it drew the battle lines for the coming election.

Brown laid down four priorities.

The first concerned the economy: above all, he intends to secure the recovery, and not imperil it.

The jury’s still out on whether the recovery is really under way, but it does feel as though we’ve turned a corner. And if we have, that’s because when we needed it the government rose to the challenge: over the “long weekend” on 11 and 12 October 2008, when stock markets around the world were in free fall and the international banking system was rocking on its foundations.

For the whole weekend, day and night, politicians, civil servants and financiers were locked in discussions to find a way out of the crisis. Brown and Darling led the work even though they also had to fly off to key meetings in the States or in continental Europe, to obtain the international coordination of measures that would ensure their success.

The effect of the leadership Brown and Darling showed is visible everywhere. Most obviously, because meltdown was avoided. But another vast area of benefit touches what became Brown’s second pledge at the weekend, the protection of industry and jobs: it is striking that bankruptcies and unemployment have risen far less in this recession than in any previous one. Of course, there’s been short-time working, and there have been pay cuts, but far more people have kept their jobs than in the crises of the past. Most people would agree that it’s better to be in a job, even if on short time or reduced pay, than to be unemployed. Millions will benefit from the intelligent behaviour of the government as the recovery strengthens.

Why do these steps and Brown’s priorities constitute a battle line? Because while Labour was reacting to the crisis and rebuilding the economy, the Tories were calling for cuts. Massive cuts. They kept doing that, apparently taking macho delight in being the ones who wanted to cut the most, until they realised it was beginning to cost them popularity. Then they changed their tune.

On the one hand we had a government that did what was necessary, who put in the intense drive needed to make it happen, even though many of the steps have excited questioning, opposition, sometimes downright scorn. They did it despite the sound and fury against them, because it had to be done.

On the other side, all we’ve seen is opportunistic electioneering.

But how could it be otherwise? After all, just as Labour led the way internationally to address the crisis, the Tories led the way internationally in sowing its seeds. Nigel Lawson, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer in Thatcher’s government at the time, admitted to the ‘Analysis’ programme on Radio 4 recently that when he launched the ‘Big Bang’ reforms of the stock market in 1986, he hadn’t realised that they would have the effect of ending the protective separation between merchant and retail banking:

“I have to confess I didn’t give it a great deal of thought at that time…I’d taken for granted the separation because by custom and practice we had had that all those years, we’d always had it, but it was a completely unforeseen consequence of the stock exchange reforms.”

In his turn, the US banker and former Stock Exchange Chief, John S. Reed asked whether the developments in London had affected the situation in New York, replied:

“Absolutely. Because the markets are globalised…as the capital markets became more and more inter-connected it became very difficult to have one kind of regime in England and a different kind of regime in New York.”

It was making the deposits in retail banks available to the risk takers in the commercial institutions that opened the gates to the wild speculation that precipitated the crisis of 2008. It’s no wonder today’s Tories had no answer to it: they are the heirs of those who brought it on, those like Lawson who “didn’t give it a great deal of thought at the time”.

Of course, it’s undeniable that the UK public deficit is massive and needs to be reduced, and Brown doesn’t deny it. His third priority is to halve the deficit, but with the crucial rider: that it should be done without jeopardising front line services. Of course, the cynics have all thrown this back in his face, accusing him of implausibility (the headline in the Telegraph) if not hypocrisy. As it happens, there’s nothing implausible about this pledge. It will actually be relatively easy to halve the deficit once the economy is growing again. This third pledge is linked to the first two: getting the economy right is the first key, and then we can reduce the deficit without cutting essential services.

Is the government sincere in this pledge? Look at its track record. The Thatcher/Major governments left us with a health service where it was not uncommon to wait two years, in pain or invalidity, for a vital operation. Today the health service has waiting times down to eighteen weeks. Recent studies have shown that school education in England has closed the historic gap on Scotland, in terms of pupil achievement and life chances. Why, even the railways were left in a disastrous and often dangerous state by the Tories, while today they run well and safely.

Labour promised to transform services and delivered. Now Brown is promising to defend them. Will he deliver? Possibly not in full, but you need to aim high to achieve anything substantial.

Finally, for his fourth priority, Brown declared that Labour will speak for the many, not the few. Though it was the last of his points, it’s perhaps the most important, expressing the philosophy that underlines all the others.

Because supporting the recovery and protecting jobs serves us all. Protecting public services matters far more to the vast majority who need them to be free than the tiny minority who can afford to pay for themselves. A thriving economy providing prosperity and security for society as a whole is the essential foundation allowing a government to protect the many, not the few.

Yes, the battle lines have been drawn. And that’s the only political event from last weekend that really matters.