In all likelihood tomorrow’s big event will be no different. But with Labour behind in the polls, a public entirely disillusioned with politicians and politics, and an undeniable problem with the state of the public finances, there is a small chance that Mr Darling could come up with a gem by addressing the issues head on.
Because tomorrow the chancellor has the opportunity to set the agenda for the election and beyond. He has the chance to pull the rug from under the Tories, to finally articulate a vision of what the left in this country stands for, and crucially to stop treating us like fools. How? If I were the angel on Mr Darling’s shoulder, I would tell him to focus on three things: an honest plan for deficit reduction; a staunch defence of the importance of the state in underpinning our society and economy; and a solid plan for economic recovery.
The majority of the voting public know that we are in a bit of financial bother. The fact is that with a national debt of around £1 trillion, interest payments of £35 billion (about the same as we spend each year on defence) and an annual deficit of nearly 13 per cent of GDP (against a previous benchmark – and theoretical EU commitment – of a deficit / GDP ratio below 3 per cent) serious measures need to be taken. The Conservatives have thus far couched much of their pre-election economic rhetoric around Labour’s dishonesty with the public about the size and speed of the required cuts. Their announcements have been alarmist, demanding ‘emergency’ action. A budget, and an accompanying commentary from the left, that attempts to gloss over the realities of the public finances will simply confirm the Tory message.
So, Mr Darling, why not be open with the truth? Mistakes have been made. We would have been better served paying down some of our debt when we were in a position to do so. But the actions taken since the financial crisis were necessary and staved off complete collapse; no government would borrow and spend as much as Labour have done in the last year just for fun. That said, the UK is not Greece, and Tory hyperbole about a run on sterling, losing our AAA rating and Britain being broke(n) is political posturing of a decidedly unpatriotic nature. The chancellor should tell us, in specific terms, that we’re all in for a bit of pain; that between now and 2015 we’re going to have to pull together and work harder, and longer. And yes, the public sector will have to take a hit, but that equally some of the most lucrative parts of the private sector will have to pay their fair share. And under a Tory government, we all know where the sharp end of the axe would fall hardest.
But that’s only part of the message. Because Mr Darling should also remind us that public spending has a purpose beyond propping up the economy. The value of the state’s role in providing healthcare for all, access to education regardless of wealth, a floor of welfare beneath which no member of our society can fall, and the protection and mobility offered by public transport, policing and defence, is continually denigrated, and no more so than in the current debate. Making this ideological case, hand in hand with an honest assessment of what needs to be done to ensure future financial stability, would be a giant leap forward in terms of clarifying for the electorate what Labour, and the left, stands for. If the Conservatives win the election the contribution of the ‘negative’ vote will be enormous – and it will be Labour’s fault for miserably failing to articulate why anyone should vote for them.
And why not end by hammering the point home: when private consumption, and investment, is weak, it is the state that can invigorate the economy with careful, targeted investment rigorously modelled to produce the greatest multiplier effect. The pessimism of political economy today is crying out for an antidote, made up of clear policy around the sectors of the economy to focus on after the election, with an explanation of how they are selected and the scale and type of support they can expect. A vision of the training schemes graduates of British schools and universities in 2015 will aspire to, and a reminder of exactly how the government intends to get the long-term unemployed back in to work across the country would, even to the cynical, be almost inspirational.
A budget delivered with this content – with honesty and energy and hope – would leave the opposition open-mouthed and without a song. We are tired of double speak, sick of being patronised and bewildered by the absence of a clear story. Mr Darling could change all that tomorrow. Fingers crossed.