Saturday, February 23, 2013
Seldon is right: Balls should fall on his sword
At the end of last week’s column, on the back of an opinion poll showing the party 11 points clear of the Tories, I suggested that the next general election in 2015 was beginning to look like it might be Labour’s to lose.
Premature? Well probably. But there seems to be a growing view in political circles – not least on the Tory backbenches - that Labour is on course to become, at worst, the largest single party in another hung Parliament.
At the same time, however, there remains a strong awareness that despite favourable poll ratings and the growing unpopularity of the Coalition, the party still has one huge Achilles Heel: the economic record of the last Labour government.
And the man who, more than any other, personifies this is the Shadow Chancellor, Ed Balls – Gordon Brown’s chief economic adviser for most of his time at the Treasury and his closest political ally once he got to Number 10.
In my political preview of 2013, published on the last Saturday of 2012, I predicted that Labour leader Ed Miliband might eventually be obliged to resolve this difficulty by relieving Mr Balls of his responsibilities.
So it came as no huge surprise, to me at any rate, to see this view being repeated by no less a figure than Anthony Seldon, Master of Wellington College and the pre-eminent historian of the Blair-Brown years.
“As somebody who has written about you for many years it falls to me to say this: the time has come for you to fall on your sword,” he told Mr Balls in a New Statesman article this week.
“Ed Miliband would be a much stronger leader without you. Forgive me, but you stop Ed breathing fresh air. With you close to him, his breath will always be stale and smell of a toxic brand… Without you, Labour could present itself as a clean party, free of the factionalism and brutalism that so tarnished it when Brown was boss and you were his consigliere. “
If the Godfather allusion seems unnecessarily brutal, Seldon at least went on to hold out the prospect that Mr Balls could one day return to the front bench as a “redeemed and respected figure.”
He even went so far as to say that he might yet succeed to the party leadership one day, predicting that the public will eventually tire of the trend towards young leaders.
Unsurprisingly, it didn’t take long for Tories to start leaping to the defence of the man they believe is their greatest electoral asset.
One prominent Conservative blogger praised his “good political brain” and grasp of economics, and suggested that, far from being a drain on Ed Miliband’s leadership, he acts as a useful lightning conductor for him.
The irony of all this is that Mr Balls has, broadly speaking, been proved right in his attack on the government’s economic policy since 2010, namely that it has cut too far, too fast and in so doing snuffed out an incipient recovery.
With growth still sluggish, it is hard to gainsay the central thrust of his argument that the Coalition needs a ‘Plan B’ in order to get the economy moving again.
But whereas people may agree with Mr Balls’ analysis of the problem, this does not mean they necessarily agree with his solutions.
And Mr Balls’ real difficulty is that, rightly or wrongly, many voters assume his much-vaunted Plan B would be no more than a return to the policies that got the country into such a mess in the first place.
One of the most successful and oft-used Tory slogans of all time is the one originally coined by Harold Macmillan’s government at the 1959 election: “Life’s better with the Conservatives – don’t let Labour ruin it.”
It was used again to good effect in the last week of the 1987 campaign after the Tories’ “wobbly Thursday,” and variants such as “Britain is booming – don’t let Labour blow it” have resurfaced from time to time.
So long as Ed Balls remains in the shadow Treasury brief, the Tories won’t need Saatchi and Saatchi to devise their next election slogan for them.
It will be quite straightforward: “Britain is on the way back. Don’t let Labour Balls it up.”
Saturday, February 09, 2013
Was this the week Cameron lost his party?
Whatever else the past seven eventful days in politics will ultimately be remembered for, it’s certainly been a good, maybe even vintage week for political jokes.
“I didn’t feel in the least bit sorry for Chris Huhne - until I heard that Lembit was planning to visit him in jail,” one Lib Dem wag is supposed to have told another.
Then there was the one about the new film they are making about the Tories: Gay Weddings and Dave’s Funeral.
And one enterprising cartoonist even managed to work Richard III in, depicting a battle-scarred Mr Huhne crying: "Three points, three points, my kingdom for three points."
The fact that South Shields MP and former Foreign Secretary David Miliband was pictured asleep on the Tube with his flies undone merely added to the general hilarity.
But all joking aside, this was a week of seriously big political stories which could have equally serious repercussions for David Cameron’s coalition government.
Timing apart, Mr Huhne’s dramatic fall from grace following a 10-year cover up over a driving offence and Tuesday’s Commons vote in favour of same sex marriage are completely unrelated stories.
Yet this week saw them come together in a way that may signal real trouble for the Coalition over the forthcoming weeks.
Mr Huhne’s demise has triggered potentially the most significant by-election of the current Parliament, with the two Coalition partners set to go head to head in what is a genuine Lib Dem-Tory marginal.
And the smouldering anger among grassroots Tories over the gay marriage vote means they are certain to see it as an opportunity to vent their frustrations by giving the Lib Dems a damned good kicking.
I suspect that in an ideal world Mr Cameron would like to have been in a position to give the Lib Dems a clear run in Eastleigh in order to avoid such obvious unpleasantness.
He did, after all, allow Mr Huhne to be replaced as Energy Secretary in Cabinet by another Lib Dem, Ed Davey, so why not allow him to be similarly replaced in Parliament.
The situation is vaguely analogous to what happens in a football match when a player gets injured and play has to stop while he is treated on the pitch.
On such occasions, when play resumes the ball is automatically thrown back to the side originally in possession before the injury occurred.
Yet Mr Cameron is not in a position to make such apparently sporting gestures. His own backbenchers, and his grassroots activists, simply wouldn’t stand for it.
And even if the two parties did manage to reach a non-aggression pact, there would be no guarantee it would stop UKIP snatching the seat.
Mr Huhne’s downfall was, for Mr Cameron at any rate, one of those random occurrences which come under the category what Harold Macmillan famously termed “events, dear boy, events.”
The split in the Tory Party over gay marriage, however, was entirely preventable from his point of view.
Mr Cameron has forged ahead with a piece of legislation that was neither in his party’s manifesto nor in the Coalition agreement in the belief that it would make his party look modern and inclusive.
What it has actually done is reveal it to be bitterly divided from top to bottom – and divided parties, of course, never win elections.
Neither is it ever politically wise for a Prime Minister to put himself in a position where he is dependent on the votes of the opposition parties to get a crucial measure through the Commons.
Since Mr Cameron is fond of drawing such comparisons, it is worth recalling that this nearly happened to Tony Blair in the Iraq War debate in 2003 which saw 139 Labour MPs vote against the invasion.
Although it took another four years before he was eventually forced from office, the knives were out for him from that moment on.
If 18 March 2003 was the day Mr Blair lost his party, will 5 February 2013 go down as the day David Cameron lost his?
“I didn’t feel in the least bit sorry for Chris Huhne - until I heard that Lembit was planning to visit him in jail,” one Lib Dem wag is supposed to have told another.
Then there was the one about the new film they are making about the Tories: Gay Weddings and Dave’s Funeral.
And one enterprising cartoonist even managed to work Richard III in, depicting a battle-scarred Mr Huhne crying: "Three points, three points, my kingdom for three points."
The fact that South Shields MP and former Foreign Secretary David Miliband was pictured asleep on the Tube with his flies undone merely added to the general hilarity.
But all joking aside, this was a week of seriously big political stories which could have equally serious repercussions for David Cameron’s coalition government.
Timing apart, Mr Huhne’s dramatic fall from grace following a 10-year cover up over a driving offence and Tuesday’s Commons vote in favour of same sex marriage are completely unrelated stories.
Yet this week saw them come together in a way that may signal real trouble for the Coalition over the forthcoming weeks.
Mr Huhne’s demise has triggered potentially the most significant by-election of the current Parliament, with the two Coalition partners set to go head to head in what is a genuine Lib Dem-Tory marginal.
And the smouldering anger among grassroots Tories over the gay marriage vote means they are certain to see it as an opportunity to vent their frustrations by giving the Lib Dems a damned good kicking.
I suspect that in an ideal world Mr Cameron would like to have been in a position to give the Lib Dems a clear run in Eastleigh in order to avoid such obvious unpleasantness.
He did, after all, allow Mr Huhne to be replaced as Energy Secretary in Cabinet by another Lib Dem, Ed Davey, so why not allow him to be similarly replaced in Parliament.
The situation is vaguely analogous to what happens in a football match when a player gets injured and play has to stop while he is treated on the pitch.
On such occasions, when play resumes the ball is automatically thrown back to the side originally in possession before the injury occurred.
Yet Mr Cameron is not in a position to make such apparently sporting gestures. His own backbenchers, and his grassroots activists, simply wouldn’t stand for it.
And even if the two parties did manage to reach a non-aggression pact, there would be no guarantee it would stop UKIP snatching the seat.
Mr Huhne’s downfall was, for Mr Cameron at any rate, one of those random occurrences which come under the category what Harold Macmillan famously termed “events, dear boy, events.”
The split in the Tory Party over gay marriage, however, was entirely preventable from his point of view.
Mr Cameron has forged ahead with a piece of legislation that was neither in his party’s manifesto nor in the Coalition agreement in the belief that it would make his party look modern and inclusive.
What it has actually done is reveal it to be bitterly divided from top to bottom – and divided parties, of course, never win elections.
Neither is it ever politically wise for a Prime Minister to put himself in a position where he is dependent on the votes of the opposition parties to get a crucial measure through the Commons.
Since Mr Cameron is fond of drawing such comparisons, it is worth recalling that this nearly happened to Tony Blair in the Iraq War debate in 2003 which saw 139 Labour MPs vote against the invasion.
Although it took another four years before he was eventually forced from office, the knives were out for him from that moment on.
If 18 March 2003 was the day Mr Blair lost his party, will 5 February 2013 go down as the day David Cameron lost his?
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Council leaders should pay heed to Kinnock's warning
Earlier this week I tuned in to an interesting radio discussion
about whether, in the era of instant communication via text messaging, email
and Twitter, set-piece political speeches still retained any relevance.
The discussion had been precipitated by perhaps the most long-awaited and over-hyped set-piece political speech of recent times – Prime Minister David Cameron’s planned address on Britain’s relationship with Europe.
The discussion had been precipitated by perhaps the most long-awaited and over-hyped set-piece political speech of recent times – Prime Minister David Cameron’s planned address on Britain’s relationship with Europe.
The consensus was that, while such speeches still had their
place, it helped if the politician concerned had something new and original to
say – as for instance Margaret Thatcher did in her famous Bruges speech of 1988
when she set her face against a federal Europe.
In that respect, perhaps it was a good thing that Mr
Cameron’s proposed speech ended up being postponed, given the expectation among
commentators that it would say little to appease his increasingly Eurosceptic
backbenchers.
But if Bruges was, for those on the right of politics, the setting
for the seminal political speech of modern times, those of a Labour disposition
tend to look to another town beginning with B – namely Bournemouth.
For that was where, in 1985, Neil Kinnock delivered the
Labour conference address subsequently credited with launching the party on the
long road to recovery after the wilderness years of the early 1980s.
The historical significance of the speech was that it marked
the start of a fightback by Labour modernisers against a hard left faction
which had rendered the party unelectable.
This process of internal renewal would eventually lead to
the creation of New Labour and, electorally speaking at any rate, the most
successful period in the party’s history.
But in an era in which a Conservative-led government is once
again imposing spending cutbacks on Labour-run councils, could Mr Kinnock’s
great speech have a new relevance for today?
What he was railing against in Bournemouth was the kind of
gesture politics typified, not just by Militant-controlled Liverpool City Council,
but by a host of other Labour authorities of the era who used budget cuts as a
means of ratcheting up political pressure on the government.
The key sentence in the speech was Mr Kinnock’s warning –
delivered in the face of a heckling Derek Hatton – that “you can’t play
politics with people’s jobs, or with people’s homes, or with people’s
services.”
And more than a quarter of a century on, it’s people’s
services that are once again at stake in Newcastle, as the city council decides
how to implement what it claims are the £90m worth of savings demanded by the
Con-Lib coalition at Westminster.
Council leader Nick Forbes’ decision to target some of the
cutbacks at libraries and the arts has caused deep and bitter controversy in
the region, but is actually nothing new in the annals of Labour local
authorities.
Whether consciously or otherwise, he has taken a leaf out of
the book of David Bookbinder, the left-wing firebrand who led Derbyshire County
Council at the same time as Mr Hatton was running Liverpool.
Faced with a similar set of cutbacks in the 1980s, Mr
Bookbinder decided to take the axe to a series of libraries in Tory-voting
middle-class areas as well as scrapping school music tuition.
But just as Derbyshire’s voters saw through his attempts to
blame the government for the sorry situation, so Newcastle’s are increasingly
beginning to question who is really to blame for the present-day cutbacks.
Save Newcastle Libraries campaigner Lee Hall has made clear
his own view on the matter, accusing Councillor Forbes in a speech last week of
wanting to “make a name for himself” and wanting “a platform to rail at the
Coalition.”
“Instead of trying to protect our libraries, our enormously
successful arts organisations, Forbes, for his own political aggrandisement, is
trying to cut as much as possible,” he said.
David Bookbinder’s unique brand of showmanship made
Derbyshire a great place to be a local government reporter in the 1980s, but
ultimately his attempts to play politics with people’s services did Labour no favours
in the county.
Perhaps Councillor Forbes, too, should now take heed of Mr
Kinnock’s wise words of warning.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Taxi for Balls? My political predictions for 2013
Andy Murray will win Wimbledon, Roberto Mancini will be
sacked as manager of Manchester City, David and Victoria Beckham will return to
the UK, and the X-Factor will finally be canned after ten not always glorious years.
Those were just some of the predictions for 2013 made by
members of the public in a recent poll on what we expect to see happening in
the year ahead.
But so much for the sport and showbiz; what of the
politics? Well, in last week’s column looking
back at 2012 I suggested that the next 12 months may well see the Con-Lib Coalition
that has governed the country since May 2010 finally splitting asunder.
It seems I am not alone in this view: the prospect of Messrs Cameron and Clegg
going their separate ways was also mentioned in the aforesaid poll, along with
a rise in interest rates, a strike by NHS workers and the prosecution of a
major bank for fraud.
So what’s causing the present bout of Coalition-busting speculation? Well, anyone who heard Nick Clegg’s speech at
the Royal Commonwealth Society shortly before Christmas will not be surprised
that talk of divorce is in the air.
The speech was less about Lib Dem achievements in government
as about what Mr Clegg’s party had prevented the Tories from doing.
It was all a far cry from the government’s early days when
the Lib Dem leader had been determined that his party should jointly ‘own’ all
of the Coalition’s policies - not just those which it had specifically
advocated.
But that strategy was only destined to work so long as the
Coalition was popular. Once it started
to be unpopular – as has happened in 2012 – it was inevitable that Mr Clegg
would begin to embark on a strategy of differentiation.
It has been my view from the outset that the Lib Dems would somehow
have to find a way of getting out of the Coalition alive in order to stand any
chance of maintaining a significant parliamentary presence at the next election,
and I expect this process to be accelerated in the coming year.
The internal politics of the two parties will play a big
part. If Mr Clegg does not, by the time
of his party’s annual conference, set out some kind of exit strategy, he will
almost certainly face a leadership challenge before the election.
At the same time, those Tory backbench voices which loathe
the Lib Dems and all their works will grow louder, as they seek to press David
Cameron into the more orthodox Conservative position that they believe –
mistakenly in my view – will secure them an outright majority next time round.
I would expect the upshot to be that the Lib Dems will leave
the government within the next 12-15 months, with the Tories moving to a
“confidence and supply” arrangement for the remainder of the five-year
Parliament.
But while the Coalition may struggle to maintain the
semblance of unity, Labour leader Ed Miliband will also struggle to present
himself as the Prime Minister-in-waiting that Mr Cameron and Tony Blair so
obviously were in their opposition days.
Mr Miliband has had his successes, but the full rashness of
Labour’s decision to choose him over his brother David will become clear over
the next 12 months.
Overtures will be made to the South Shields MP to return the
frontline as Shadow Chancellor in place of Ed Balls, whose closeness to Gordon
Brown and the errors of the New Labour years will ultimately prove a fatal
barrier to the party’s attempts to regain economic credibility.
But a likelier outcome is a comeback for the respected former
Chancellor, Alistair Darling, who has successfully managed to distance himself
from Mr Brown’s mistakes.
Mr Balls may not be the only major economic player to be
shown the door in 2013. If the economy
continues to stagnate, Mr Cameron may also be forced to find a new role for George
Osborne as the election draws nearer.
And with Mr Osborne out of the Tory succession picture, attempts
will be made to build up Education Secretary Michael Gove as the alternative
contender from within the Cabinet to counter the continuing threat of Boris
Johnson.
Unlike poor old Mr Mancini, I don’t expect we will see any
of the three main party leaders actually losing their jobs in 2013.
What we will see, though, is each of them having to take
fairly drastic action in order to save them.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Budget debacle that left Coalition floundering
Here's my annual political review of the year, published in this morning's Newcastle Journal.
Until the early months of this year, the Con-Lib coalition that has governed Britain since May 2010 had by and large done so with a fair wind behind it from the public.
Without ever reaching the heights of popularity enjoyed by New Labour as its zenith, David Cameron’s government appeared, at the very least, to have earned the benefit of the doubt, particularly when it came to the economy.
All that changed on Wednesday 21 March – the day Chancellor George Osborne delivered his third Budget.
To say it was the pivotal moment of the political year would be something of an understatement. In terms of its impact on public opinion, it may well prove to be the pivotal moment of the entire five-year Parliament.
In the space of a 59-minute speech, the Chancellor announced a package of measures which seemed almost deliberately designed to alienate as many sections of the electorate as he could find.
He slapped VAT on hot food and caravans, froze the age-related tax allowance for pensioners, removed a tax break on charitable giving that would have hit hundreds of good causes, and topped it off with a cut in the higher rate of tax worth £42,295 to anyone earning £1m a year.
It was the ‘pasty tax’ rather than the top rate cut which proved the most politically toxic, playing as it did into the ‘Tory toffs’ narrative which had increasingly started to dog Messrs Cameron and Osborne.
In the end, the plan was ditched following a campaign by this newspaper among others – one of a series of budget U-turns which left the Chancellor’s credibility seriously damaged.
From there on in, even though the festivities around the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee and the London 2012 Olympics provided useful temporary distractions, the government struggled to get back on the front foot.
And the slide in its opinion poll ratings was accompanied by increasing tensions within the Coalition itself – notably over Europe, welfare cuts, gay marriage and, most of all, Lords reform.
With his dream of a new electoral system shattered in the May 2011 referendum, deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg was pinning his hopes of achieving lasting political reform on securing an elected second chamber - but the Tory backbenchers were having none of it.
The Lib Dems retaliated by scuppering the Tories’ plans for a review of Parliamentary boundaries that would probably have gained them 20-30 seats at the next election
Frustrated in his attempts to regain the political initiative, Mr Cameron resorted to the time-honoured tactic of a reshuffle, but some of his new appointments soon began to unravel.
He shunted Justine Greening out of the job of transport secretary on account of her opposition to a third runway at Heathrow only to see London Mayor and would-be leadership rival Boris Johnson rally to her cause.
His appointment of Andrew Mitchell as chief whip also swiftly backfired when he was involved in an altercation with police officers at the entrance to 10 Downing Street.
However in what has surely been the most interminable and convoluted political story of the year, Mr Mitchell now looks likely to have the last laugh, after it emerged that a police officer may have fabricated evidence.
In the North-East, the regional political agenda continued to be dominated by the fallout from the government’s spending cuts.
Newcastle city council responded to the spending squeeze by taking the axe to the arts budget – reminding those of us with long memories of the antics of so-called ‘loony left’ councils in the 1980s.
Yet at the same time, the year saw something of a rebirth of regional policy, driven by Lord Heseltine’s ‘No Stone Unturned’ report which was explicitly endorsed by Mr Osborne in his autumn statement.
The mini budget also saw the Chancellor forced to back down on plans to introduce regional pay rates following a fierce campaign by the unions.
The year ended with increasing speculation that the Coalition may not, after all, go the distance to the planned next election date of May 2015.
With the government seemingly stuck in a trough of unpopularity, the need for the Liberal Democrats to assert their separate identity from the Tories is growing.
Mr Clegg’s decision to make a separate Commons statement from the front bench on last month’s Leveson report into press regulation was unprecedented, but may well prove to be the start of a trend.
If 2012 was the year the Coalition lost the public’s goodwill, 2013 may prove to be the one that sees it splitting asunder.
Until the early months of this year, the Con-Lib coalition that has governed Britain since May 2010 had by and large done so with a fair wind behind it from the public.
Without ever reaching the heights of popularity enjoyed by New Labour as its zenith, David Cameron’s government appeared, at the very least, to have earned the benefit of the doubt, particularly when it came to the economy.
All that changed on Wednesday 21 March – the day Chancellor George Osborne delivered his third Budget.
To say it was the pivotal moment of the political year would be something of an understatement. In terms of its impact on public opinion, it may well prove to be the pivotal moment of the entire five-year Parliament.
In the space of a 59-minute speech, the Chancellor announced a package of measures which seemed almost deliberately designed to alienate as many sections of the electorate as he could find.
He slapped VAT on hot food and caravans, froze the age-related tax allowance for pensioners, removed a tax break on charitable giving that would have hit hundreds of good causes, and topped it off with a cut in the higher rate of tax worth £42,295 to anyone earning £1m a year.
It was the ‘pasty tax’ rather than the top rate cut which proved the most politically toxic, playing as it did into the ‘Tory toffs’ narrative which had increasingly started to dog Messrs Cameron and Osborne.
In the end, the plan was ditched following a campaign by this newspaper among others – one of a series of budget U-turns which left the Chancellor’s credibility seriously damaged.
From there on in, even though the festivities around the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee and the London 2012 Olympics provided useful temporary distractions, the government struggled to get back on the front foot.
And the slide in its opinion poll ratings was accompanied by increasing tensions within the Coalition itself – notably over Europe, welfare cuts, gay marriage and, most of all, Lords reform.
With his dream of a new electoral system shattered in the May 2011 referendum, deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg was pinning his hopes of achieving lasting political reform on securing an elected second chamber - but the Tory backbenchers were having none of it.
The Lib Dems retaliated by scuppering the Tories’ plans for a review of Parliamentary boundaries that would probably have gained them 20-30 seats at the next election
Frustrated in his attempts to regain the political initiative, Mr Cameron resorted to the time-honoured tactic of a reshuffle, but some of his new appointments soon began to unravel.
He shunted Justine Greening out of the job of transport secretary on account of her opposition to a third runway at Heathrow only to see London Mayor and would-be leadership rival Boris Johnson rally to her cause.
His appointment of Andrew Mitchell as chief whip also swiftly backfired when he was involved in an altercation with police officers at the entrance to 10 Downing Street.
However in what has surely been the most interminable and convoluted political story of the year, Mr Mitchell now looks likely to have the last laugh, after it emerged that a police officer may have fabricated evidence.
In the North-East, the regional political agenda continued to be dominated by the fallout from the government’s spending cuts.
Newcastle city council responded to the spending squeeze by taking the axe to the arts budget – reminding those of us with long memories of the antics of so-called ‘loony left’ councils in the 1980s.
Yet at the same time, the year saw something of a rebirth of regional policy, driven by Lord Heseltine’s ‘No Stone Unturned’ report which was explicitly endorsed by Mr Osborne in his autumn statement.
The mini budget also saw the Chancellor forced to back down on plans to introduce regional pay rates following a fierce campaign by the unions.
The year ended with increasing speculation that the Coalition may not, after all, go the distance to the planned next election date of May 2015.
With the government seemingly stuck in a trough of unpopularity, the need for the Liberal Democrats to assert their separate identity from the Tories is growing.
Mr Clegg’s decision to make a separate Commons statement from the front bench on last month’s Leveson report into press regulation was unprecedented, but may well prove to be the start of a trend.
If 2012 was the year the Coalition lost the public’s goodwill, 2013 may prove to be the one that sees it splitting asunder.
Saturday, December 08, 2012
At last: The beginnings of a regional economic policy
IN terms of the political big picture, Chancellor George
Osborne’s autumn statement on Wednesday this week may well come to be seen as a
pivotal moment in the next general election battle.
Whether the so-called mini budget will win or lose that
contest for his party, however, is currently a difficult one to call.
On the one hand, the Chancellor was, against the
expectations of most pundits and economists, able to reveal that the deficit is
continuing to fall, and that government borrowing would therefore not need to
increase after all.
On the other, he was forced to admit that the years of
austerity would continue at least until 2018, that growth would continue to be
sluggish, and that his original target of reducing debt as a proportion of GDP
by 2015 would be delayed by at least a year.
Too much has been made of the fact that Shadow Chancellor Ed
Balls, thrown by the unexpected news on borrowing, made an uncharacteristic
hash of his set-piece reply to Mr Osborne’s Commons statement.
The truth is that only political anoraks get worked up about
that sort of thing. What will linger
more in the public’s mind is the fact that Chancellor’s harsh medicine is still
no nearer to bringing about a lasting economic recovery.
Of potentially much greater significance than Mr Balls’
incoherent ramblings is the risk that Mr Osborne’s failure to meet the debt
reduction target will mean Britain losing its AAA credit rating.
Much of what Mr Osborne has done over the past two and a
half years has been designed to stave off this very threat, and if the rating
is indeed downgraded, it will surely be time for David Cameron to find a new
Chancellor.
What, though, does it all mean for the North-East? Well – and how many times have I had to write
this line over the past 15 years? – there will be no dualling of the A1 north
of Newcastle for starters.
Other proposals which failed to win the Chancellor’s stamp
of approval included a £25m upgrade for the Tyne and Wear Metro, and a package
of support for the region’s offshore wind industry.
Furthermore the proposed welfare cutbacks, with benefit
rises for the next three years capped at a below-inflation 1pc, will also
disproportionately hit those regions with higher rates of unemployment such as
this one.
But amid all this, there are continuing signs that this
government – more so than its recent predecessors – is starting to take the
idea of regional policy seriously.
The most obvious indication of this came a few weeks when Lord
Heseltine, the arch-interventionist of Tory politics in an era where the free
marketeers held sway, published his ‘No Stone Unturned’ report.
The Chancellor has explicitly backed its call for a single
funding pot covering housing, skills, transport and job creation as well new
powers and funding for local enterprise partnerships.
Significantly, the government is to give each LEP the chance
to nominate a single major infrastructure project which will then be eligible
for a new concessionary public works loan rate, up to a value of £1.5bn.
In addition Whitehall will provide a further £350m towards
the Regional Growth Fund, to provide support for jobs and growth across the
English regions until 2015.
While the impact of those changes remains to be seen, a more
immediate boost to the region came with the announcement that - 54 years on from the opening of the Preston
by-pass - Newcastle will finally join the motorway network, with all stretches
of the A1 south of the city to be upgraded to motorway standard.
And the spectre of regional pay, which could have led to teachers
and nurses in the North being paid less than their Southern counterparts, has
also receded in what was a notable victory for both the unions and the Lib
Dems.
It was surely coincidence that, on the day the Tories were pushed
into fourth place by UKIP in the Middlesbrough by-election last week, Mr Osborne
appointed a new adviser in Neil O’Brien who has previously warned that the party risks
‘pariah status’ in the North.
If the autumn statement is anything to go by, maybe he is
already making his voice heard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)