Chuka makes some valid points in his recent Guradian article:
For example he acknowledges that:
” First, we spoke to our core voters but not to aspirational, middle-class ones. We talked about the bottom and top of society, about the minimum wage and zero-hour contracts, about mansions and non-doms. But we had too little to say to the majority of people in the middle.”
Partially right. “The majority of people” are in the middle. So, in a democracy, to win elections, you have to not only speak to, but also win support from, “the majority of people”. There’s no getting away from that.
Whether Labour spoke to its core voters is a matter of opinion. I’d argue they may have spoken to them, but they didn’t listen, which is slightly different.
He also makes some invalid points. He says:
“Of course, the last Labour government should not have been running (an albeit small and historically unremarkable) deficit before the financial crash. “
The last Labour government certainly made more than a few mistakes. George Brown famously made the ludicrous claim that he’d abolished “boom and bust”. The period of the Labour government (13 years) consisted of mainly years of boom, which enabled it to achieve electoral success, except the last 2 years were years of bust, or trying to recover from the 2008 bust, which brought about its downfall.
But did they make a mistake about the government’s deficit? The boom was caused by too much credit being created by the private sector. I don’t believe there is any dispute on that point. That credit inflated asset prices, firstly shares in the dotcom boom and then property prices in the years up to 2008. With the benefit of hindsight what should they have done to prevent that credit bubble? They, or their so-called “independent” Bank of England, should have increased interest rates. If there’s too little saving and too much borrowing then interest rates should rise. Is there any dispute on that point? That would have stopped the credit bubble. No problem.
But if they’d done that there would have been a problem of the £ appreciating in value. Exports would have become uncompetitive. That, and the reduction in domestic borrowing, and therefore, spending, would have led to less economic activity. Business failures and unemployment would have risen.
So what else would the Labour Government have had to do to compensate? Run a tighter fiscal policy, with a lower deficit, or a looser fiscal policy with a higher deficit?
If you think you know the answer, please email it, with an extremely simple to understand explanation, to:
PS I’ll ask Chuka if he can provide a small cash prize for the best answer. 🙂