Morning Call: An end to austerity?
Rachel Reeves’ definition of halting cuts will be challenged.
Good morning, George here in Liverpool. This Labour conference doesn’t feel like that of a party which won a landslide victory two months ago. The mood is instead more redolent of a midterm gathering with briefing wars, policy splits and negative polling.
I’ve interviewed a more upbeat Ed Miliband who declares: “We need to move fast and build things” and offers a notably strong defence of Keir Starmer and Sue Gray.
The main event today is Rachel Reeves’ keynote speech in which she will promise “no return to austerity”. But does the rhetoric match the reality? That’s what I explore below.
To enjoy our latest analysis of politics, news and events, in addition to world-class literary and cultural reviews, click here to subscribe to the New Statesman. You’ll enjoy all of the New Statesman’s online content, ad-free podcasts and invitations to NS events.
There’s a clear message that Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves want voters to hear from this Labour conference: there will be no return to austerity. It’s a line that was used repeatedly during the general election campaign and that has now been revived.
In her keynote speech today, Reeves will say: “There will be no return to austerity. Conservative austerity was a destructive choice for our public services – and for investment and growth too.”
But this prompts an important question: how is austerity defined? When I asked Reeves’ team what they meant by ending austerity, they made three points: first, that Labour cannot be accused of implementing it when raising public-sector pay by £9.4bn in real terms. Second, that austerity was a political choice with the ideological objective of a smaller state (one not shared by Labour). And third, that Labour is already spending more on public services: the abolition of non-dom status will fund higher NHS spending, and the imposition of VAT on private-school fees will fund 6,500 more teachers.
They refused, however, to rule out real-terms cuts to government departments in the Budget and the Spending Review. When pressed on the same point on the Today programme this morning, Reeves would only commit to “real-terms increases to government spending in this parliament”. That’s quite a low bar: given an ageing population even the most austere government would struggle to reduce overall spending (Margaret Thatcher, for instance, only managed it in two years).
The fiscal challenge for Labour, as ever, is that it has committed to ending austerity but also to freezing the main rates of income tax, National Insurance, VAT and corporation tax. Reeves’ mantra is that higher economic growth is the way to ensure better-funded public services. But the arithmetic remains daunting even assuming a significant rise in GDP.
But there’s also a political challenge. Though Reeves is already raising public spending (as her aides point out), the vibe around this government is a far more austere one. That partly reflects a deliberate emphasis on the “tough choices” to come in the Budget and the Spending Review. But it also reflects a political choice: the decision to remove winter fuel payments from 10 million pensioners. Labour, which faces a potential conference defeat on the issue later this week, has been defined by a cut rather than a spending increase.
Regardless of the merits or demerits of that policy, some ministers fear it has muddled the government’s message. On the one hand, Starmer has said that “those with the broadest shoulders should bear the heavier burden” – a hint of progressive tax rises to come (with capital gains tax, inheritance tax and pension tax relief all options). On the other, Labour is removing winter fuel payments from pensioners with incomes as low as £11,300 a year.
That has made it far harder to establish a narrative of “tough but fairer choices” – social democracy in a cold climate. The Budget on 30 October will be the moment that Reeves truly defines her approach. But for now, she faces an awkward question: if austerity was an avoidable choice, why weren’t the winter fuel cuts?
Reader survey
On behalf of our commercial partners
George’s picks
Phil Tinline explores how Labour can change the national soul.
Nick asks whether Reform has a coherent platform after attending the party’s conference.
Rachel interviews author Eliza Filby on the rise of the UK’s “inheritocracy”.
Will on the trend that the recent blitz of media deals reveals.
Our investments in both the North Sea and in developing new lower carbon energy projects help to support the UK economy. bp spent £5.3 billion with UK suppliers last year and contributed an estimated £17.1 billion overall to the UK’s GDP. See how bp has been backing Britain.
And with that…
My thanks to Barney Horner.
Have a great day. I’ll be back tomorrow when the attention will move to Keir Starmer’s conference speech.
George — @georgeeaton
I am one of the 10 million pensioners who did not need the £300 WFA. Apparently it wasted £1.4 billion of tax payers money to give us a benefit that in 1997 might have been useful but by 2024 was not needed and a waste of revenues needed for other purposes. Why not raise the level at which pension credit comes into operation and encourage pensioners with incomes less that £15,000 to apply and obtain the additional £300 they need. There are people out there who claim that the £1.4 billion is a pittance in comparison with the social care budget. If any one person had a fortune of £1.4 billion they would be amongst the wealthiest people on earth.
Why is The Guardian taking such a negative view of the Labour Government,after 14 years of Tory disaster.?