Fast forward 18 years and the Republicans have emulated Clinton’s lesson. In this respect Republican House leader, John Boehner, successfully framed the conservative economic case just eight days after President Obama was sworn in, delivering zero votes of support for the president’s economic policy. Republican opposition to industrial bailouts, deficit spending, and large-scale government-mandated programmes (all of which had been hallmarks of George Bush Jr’s presidency) dominated conservative messaging on the economy. Instead of a public debate on a financial collapse averted, the Republicans focused on ‘out of control government spending’ and the lack of jobs.
Though the motivation for, and nature of, Labour’s economic policies are very different from the Republicans’, the party can learn from the GOP’s messaging. As the reality of the cuts begins to bite, Labour must master a simple narrative to articulate its economic policy.
The coalition has been ruthless in blaming Labour’s spending for the ‘necessity’ of cuts. Labour fell into the government’s trap by debating all summer whether the deficit should be halved in four, five or six years. Instead, it should start every discussion by pointing out that the Tories supported Labour’s plans until the greed of Wall Street caused the collapse of Lehman Brothers. This framing helps moves the debate from a narrow focus on government deficits to a broader discussion on the composition of the UK economy.
Labour must also bring every debate – whether on welfare reform, departmental cuts, or the external situation in the eurozone – back to unemployment. So far, the recovery is jobless and, if the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development is to be believed, a further 1.6 million jobs will be lost. The coalition sees the metric of success as the pace of cuts; Labour must be clear that success is measured by job creation. Blame must be placed where it belongs: with Conservatives and Liberal Democrats who believe, like Norman Lamont, that ‘unemployment is a price worth paying.’
Third, Labour must question the fairness of every cut. Where the burdens are felt evenly, for example with procurement spending in defence or pay restraint in the public sector, the party should support the government’s approach. This will provide licence to hammer the coalition’s attack on the health service, surestart, universities, housing benefit, the police, and many other areas.
By emulating the simplicity of the Republicans’ message, Labour can avoid the Democrats’ fate of arguing hypotheticals (indeed, leaving technocratic talk of bond market reprisals to coalition cheerleaders). Instead, it must keep the focus on voters’ real concerns about jobs and livelihoods. Such an approach would be as merciless in its condemnation of the coalition’s economic approach as the Republicans have been to the Democrats, while offering a more emotionally appealing alternative.
Yes, Labour should be able to provide what they think is credible alternative to the coalition government economic policy. They should be able to highlight the consequences of the cut to the economy, Unemployment is not only a problem long term economic growth, but also long term social deprivation. Blaming Labour’s spending for the ‘necessity’ of cuts is total madness, Labour should explored the credulity Mr V Cable claim to himself before the election, he claim to have known every things, he argued that any severed cut will damage the economy and will leads to double recession. His man love power than the country, hypocrite!!! Tories enjoyed what they are doing. They have opportunity to come back to complete the agenda of demolition of the state (big society). Yes, it true the Tories supported Labour’s plans until the greed of Wall Street caused the collapse of Lehman Brothers. This framing would helps moves the debate from a narrow focus on government deficits to a broader discussion on the composition of the UK economy. Who said there are no alternative higher school fees, we all believe the benefits of education is for the whole society, not only for the person that receive the education. Education could be free as it was before. We have large economy than have before. We only needs to diversify our priority, stimulate job creation and now policy that would make the receiver and the beneficiary to make contribution to education funding. Why should we be fighting to secure our economics interest abroad, because we all benefits from it. However, some are benefiting from it than the other, the multinational company are the main beneficial from the sacristies. That will not make us to say they should be funding the war. Because we all know that our security at home depend on the peace of the world.