Is The Labour Party Waiting For Forgiveness, Memory Loss And Death?

In the run up to the Election, the Oxford economist, Simon Wren-Lewis, wrote an excellent series of blog posts entitled, ‘Mediamacro myths’, where he drew attention to the false claims made by the Tories and their supporters about Labour’s record in office and their own economic policy achievements. These include the charge that Labour was financially profligate between 1997 and 2008 and that Austerity has worked. So I was surprised to read a more recent post in which he questions whether Labour in general and Ed Balls in particular had any choice but to commit to reducing the Deficit by making cuts in public spending now, now, now! As he put it:

Some, like Robert Skidelsky for example, describe these movements, and a failure to extol the virtues of fiscal policy under Labour, as a mistake. However, I suspect that if Labour’s shadow Chancellor Ed Balls could ever speak the truth, he would say that he did not want to gradually acquiesce to the austerity line, but the evidence from focus groups was overwhelming. Defending Labour before the financial crisis was pointless because it just reminded people that the Great Recession happened under their watch, and that Labour (like everyone else) gave finance too free a hand. The ‘too far, too fast’ line just sounded feeble when the news was all about the Eurozone crisis. In the end, Labour just had to be ‘tough on the deficit’.

Do we have to be so pessimistic? After all, the Labour Party had 5 years in which to develop and sell its own narrative about its record in office. A story could have been told about all the achievements of the Blair-Brown era - the minimum wage and increasing funding for the NHS up to European levels to name but a few. This could have been followed by an explanation of how this period of progressive improvement was brought to an end by the worst Recession in 300 years. The Recession was the result of a crisis in financial markets that was conceived, designed and delivered by the private sector. There could have been a mea culpa about how Labour in office was seduced, along with all other governments in the developed world, by the argument that markets needed only light touch regulation. The Great Recession showed how the public needed protecting from what the drive for profit maximisation will create in a free market that is left to its own devices. Once you have established the case for the State as regulator and protector and that this role has to be more interventionist and robust than previously accepted, you could go on to talk about other things that the State can do to benefit everyone, not just the poor and needy. For example, the economist Mariana Mazzucato, who wrote the book, The Entrepreneurial State, in which she shows how the technological innovations that made the iPhone possible were created by state-funded research programmes, has suggested that we should be talking about the State as a major wealth creator.

Is this just too fanciful?

One of Ed Miliband’s achievements as Labour Leader was to make inequality an issue. I remember initially when he and other Shadow Cabinet members started talking about the ‘Squeezed Middle’, people laughed as it conjured up images of people walking around in varying degrees of discomfort because their trousers were too tight. But gradually, as the points being made were based on the facts, the issue, re-presented more snappily as ‘The Cost Of Living Crisis’, gained traction in the public mind and in the media. The proof of this was that during the last part of the Coalition government, the Tories found that they had to try to counter this issue. Thus, in February this year, we saw David Cameron telling bosses to give workers a pay rise. Then in March, an IFS paper that explained that since 2007/8, living standards had fallen for everyone except those over 60, was spun as proof that living standards had risen. Most bizarrely of all, the approach of deflation which is generally understood to be a bad thing (otherwise why does George Osborne charge the Bank of England with the job of keeping inflation at 2% rather than zero??!) was hailed as a brilliant policy achievement as it was argued that it would raise real incomes even as nominal pay remained subdued.

So, it was possible to set the policy and campaigning agenda, even if the attempt met with a less than enthusiastic reception initially. The problem with Labour’s decision to embrace Austerity economics was not just that it meant a refusal to rebut the argument that it had been spendthrift in office, but that it seemingly led to an unwillingness to defend anything about its record in office. Does anyone remember the 18 month hospital waiting lists that were normal under John Major, of Gordon Brown’s achievements on Third World debt forgiveness? Talking of forgiveness, it seems to me that if Labour continues to refuse to defend its record in government then it will have to rely on the Electorate’s willingness to forgive it for all its supposed failings before it can be re-elected. Or, of course, wait until everyone who was around in the Naughties either forgets or dies. I, for one, would like to put my trust in something a bit more inspiring than this.

It's 1992 All Over Again

As I stood alone outside a primary school in Deptford yesterday giving out ‘Vote Today’ leaflets, as bidden by our organisers, I was able to reflect on Labour’s national General Election Campaign strategy.  Why had we totally failed to stand up for the economic record of the last Labour government?  Why had we failed to rebut the claim that the deficit was due to Labour’s profligacy and why had we failed to stand up against Austerity and instead decided to go to the polls offering Austerity with a smiley face?  As I stood there wishing the minutes to pass so I could move along, I realised that I was outside a school that was fairly newly-built and part of a innovative new building that combined the school with a public library, café and community resource.  As I looked at the school, I had my back to a leisure centre and swimming pool that had been improved and expanded just a few years before.  Both these projects had been built under the last Labour government, a government that had reduced the national debt before the Great Recession from the level it inherited from the previous one.  So much for the charge that Labour spent its time in office pouring scarce taxpayers’ money down the drain.

Perhaps the greatest opportunity provided to Labour by yesterday’s Election disappointment was the defeat of Ed Balls.  He must bear a large share of the responsibility for the party’s campaigning performance on the economy over the last 5 years and the message it put to the electorate yesterday.  In truth, as Shadow Chancellor he should probably bear a larger share than Ed Miliband himself.  To be honest, I rejoiced when Alan Johnson gave up the job and Miliband appointed Balls.  I remember saying to our Mayor, Steve Bullock, how pleased I was to hear the news because I thought that he would prove to be a ‘pitiless assassin’ when it came to ‘kebabbing’ Chancellor George Osborne.  I thought Balls would make mincemeat out of him and his ridiculous claims that the UK was bankrupt and about to go the way of Greece and then pour it on when Austerity inevitably sucked the life out of an economy that had been recovering.  Instead I looked on with growing surprise, frustration and anger as he increasingly appeared to resemble a striker who suddenly found himself with the ball at his feet and facing an open goal but succumbing to stage fright. 

But sadly, there is more to it than this.  I listened to Balls speak in the flesh twice and both times I came away with my view of his competence dented for reasons that may surprise.  The first was at a local constituency fundraising dinner when he made a speech in which he completely mangled a punchline to a funny story.  The second was at an event for business people in London.  Then he was introduced by Ed Miliband who said he was going to hand over to him to tell us about Labour’s policy on the economy.  Balls then said that before he did that he would just like to tell us what was obviously meant to be a crowd-pleasing, amusing story.  He then proceeded to mangle this one as well.  He appeared to verbally lose his way, come to a juddering halt and forget why he was there.  We all stood there and realised that revelation of Labour’s view on the economy had been postponed.  At the time, I thought these experiences oddities rather than symptoms of inadequacy.

However, Balls’s greatest difficulty was that the more his new high profile job thrust him into the public eye, the more the public decided they didn’t like him.  I don’t want to dwell on this.  Suffice to say that in order to be a successful politician you have to be popular or inspire confidence, preferably both.  You are at something of a disadvantage if people take an instant dislike to you and think you untrustworthy, especially when the impression is reinforced by further exposure.

Why am I putting the boot into the vanquished Balls?  It does make me feel rather uncomfortable.  My point is that when I raised my misgivings about him with party insiders I was told that I was wrong, he was very effective and, what is more, everyone who had worked with him in the Party, even if they didn’t agree with him politically, liked him.  In fairness, it has to be said, he did come third in the 2010 Leadership contest.  Yet if he had won, is there anyone who would confidently say  that his personal poll ratings would be higher than Ed Miliband’s?  There can surely be no doubt that, if Balls was still in Parliament, he would be making his run to be the next leader.  Even if this wasn’t the case, he would probably remain a leading figure in the next Shadow Cabinet.  Can a political party really expect to win elections when its internal democratic processes allow individuals that are so unpopular with the public to ascend to national leadership positions where they have so much exposure to the, er, public?

As it is, Balls is out of the picture and with his departure so goes probably the most high profile figure with a clear connection to the Blair/Brown/Iraq War/Financial Collapse Labour government that so many people obviously found so toxic, even if unfairly.  Perhaps now, the decks are clear for a new beginning and an abandonment of the ‘AusterityLite’ economic policy.  One question remains.  Are Labour Party members, politicians and the unions capable of identifying someone who is capable of gaining traction with the public sufficient to win the next General Election and, even if they were, would they be willing to give them the job?  Or, when it comes to electing leaders, is the Party’s natural response to pick people whose greatest talent is the ability to concede defeat gracefully?

My London Marathon Homily, 2015

Once again I ran this year’s London Marathon for the Lavender Trust. Many, many thanks to all those who sponsored me. Donations can still be made here:

https://www.justgiving.com/paul-maslin15

In my albeit amateur opinion, conditions on Sunday were perfect. The weather was a bit chilly with a fresh wind but the rain held off so that once you got a few miles into the race you were cool and comfortable. I suspect this helped a lot of runners from the mass starts to put in good personal times. Alas, I wasn’t one of them, finishing about 4 minutes slower than last year in a time of 3 58 28. As I said last year, sub 4 hours is a pretty respectable time. I always said to myself that I wouldn’t really feel that I had ‘run’ a marathon until I had done it in under 4 hours and I only succeeded at my fifth attempt. It’s worth pointing out though that my performance was only average for my year group, men between the ages of 45-49. Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, stormed round in 3 31 35 and he is in the 50-54 age group.

My performance against older age groups was even more disappointing than last year. For the record:

I was beaten by 186 men in the 60-64 age group, the 186th being the wonderfully named Terry Onions who managed a time of 3 58 22.

I was beaten by 61 men in the 65-69 age group.

I was beaten by 17 men who were 70 or over. This is 9 more than last year. This year 150 70+ men finished the course compared to 138 last year.

I was beaten by 21 women in the 60-64 age group.

I was beaten by 4 women in the 65-69 age group.

Once again, happily, I managed to hold of the challenge from the 70+ women. However, the fastest 70+ lady was only about 6 minutes behind me and this year, there were 44 70+ women finishers compared to 33 last year.

It would be interesting for someone to go through all the London Marathon results going back to the very first one in 1981 and chart the increased participation and improving performance of the older age groups. I remember that the media made much of the late great Madge Sharples when she completed her first marathon in 1981 (was it London?) aged 64. She carried on running into her 70s and often featured in the publicity that went along with the build up for London. Thirty-odd years on such an achievement is not worth a special mention, so ubiquitous has it become.

In October 2014, the NHS published its Five Year Forward View. In this document, it set out the challenges facing the NHS in the coming years and outlined its proposals for meeting them:

‘we live longer, with complex health issues, sometimes of our own making. One in five adults still smoke. A third of us drink too much alcohol. Just under two thirds of us are overweight or obese.’

It goes on to make clear that the NHS will not be able to meet these challenges, even assuming the most optimistic future funding envelopes, unless it starts to take prevention seriously.

So at a time when the London Marathon saw more entrants than ever before and with the breaking of 3 world and 6 course records, the country is facing the ticking time bomb of mass preventable ill-health which threatens to overwhelm our tax payer funded, free at the point of need, Health Service. Clearly we are a nation divided, with some cohorts never being healthier and fitter and some, because of bad diet and lifestyle, destined to die younger than their parents. Bearing in mind that a disproportionate number in the latter category inhabit the lower echelons of the income distribution, many of the solutions to the problem will lie with policy to tackle poverty, poor educational outcomes, poor housing and rising inequality. For those of us engaged in this noble pursuit, it is worth remembering that, although some problems are very big and may take a long time to solve, we can set a small example with our own lives. After all, it is better to light a small candle than rage against the darkness.