X Close

Blaming Liz Truss won't solve Labour's problems

Whodunnit? Credit: Getty

November 1, 2024 - 4:45pm

It must, if you’re Labour, feel cosmically unjust. For years, you endured the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats successfully trashing your record to justify the Coalition’s austerity programme — a double injustice if you think Gordon Brown was a good prime minister.

Then, at last, the boot was on the other foot. In a mere 50 days, Liz Truss nuked the Tories’ reputation for economic competence. Surely, they would never live it down; some excitable commentators predicted that Labour would dine out on the mini-Budget for as long as the Conservatives did on the Winter of Discontent.

Yet the Labour attacks aren’t sticking. While it’s still too early to even think about whether the Tories are meaningfully recovering, the blame game isn’t protecting the new government’s standing with the public.

Chief Secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones today became the latest minister to dutifully invoke the spectre of Truss — to no avail. Meanwhile, voters’ patience with the line about a “black hole” in the public finances was finite even before the OBR basically scotched the claim on Wednesday. The markets are still reacting badly to the Budget, as are the voters; just as worryingly for Labour, its fig leaf of a City support network has folded.

The Starmer government’s decision to try and make hay out of Truss is perfectly understandable. The mini-Budget was a self-inflicted disaster by someone who was fundamentally bad at politics: £40 billion of deficit-financed tax cuts that panicked the markets, which were then hurriedly balanced by the promise of £40 billion in spending cuts she could never have delivered.

Yet it clearly isn’t the load-bearing argument Labour thought it was. The most important reason for this is that it is possible to make too much of a good thing, and the present government is making far too much of the mini-Budget. Yes, the markets reacted badly and mortgage rates went up. But the idea that it is the root of all our current economic woes — and the difficult decisions the Government is having to make — is self-evidently ridiculous.

Britain’s core problem is the growing gulf between public expectations of the state and the state’s capacity to finance itself. There’s no appetite for broad tax rises, nor for serious cuts to entitlement spending, and — as Labour is discovering — no large pool of easy targets who can be squeezed for lots of extra cash.

These are longstanding structural problems which have nothing to do with the mini-Budget. Indeed, they are the very shoal upon which Truss eventually foundered: she had no way to deliver her tax cuts without huge borrowing, which the markets wouldn’t stand, or huge spending cuts, which the public wouldn’t.

But, politically, the other problem for Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves is the way they fought the election. David Cameron got to dine out on Labour supposedly trashing the economy because he spent two years selling that narrative in Opposition, and then fought an election campaign which sought a mandate for some sort of austerity programme.

Labour did not do that this time, and avoided making any pledges that might frighten the horses. One reason the Chancellor is in such a bind now is that her determination to stick close to Conservative plans allowed Jeremy Hunt to box her in on tax pledges.

Starmer was rewarded with a historic Commons majority. But it’s not a majority bestowed with either a mandate from the public or — of more practical importance — a commitment from MPs to do anything dramatic or unpopular.

That greatly weakens the line about Truss, in particular, because the mini-Budget was a known quantity before the election. If its impact on the economy is the basis for any unpopular policy, that policy could have been in the manifesto. Hence the need for a new nonsense about the “black hole” — which isn’t working either.


Henry Hill is Deputy Editor of ConservativeHome.

HCH_Hill

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

4 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
2 hours ago

“…a double injustice if you think Gordon Brown was a good prime minister…”

Why on earth would anyone think Gordon Brown was a good prime minister?

Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
2 hours ago

I think something that the media are underestimating is the way that 1p off beer is being perceived as pure trolling by Reeves, and it’s adding to the scorn being poured on the budget.

It’s like Tuco giving the liquor bottle to the gun shop owner at the end. To understand what I’m waffling on about, just squint a bit and imagine Rachel Reeves in dirty spurred cowboy boots and a stubble, and watch this to the end.

https://youtu.be/4zc0r-gTxNw?si=wX0uYz5pCbGCaRxX

Last edited 2 hours ago by Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
Prashant Kotak
2 hours ago
Reply to  Prashant Kotak

In the same vein, this is the Labour Party having discovered the nirvana of getting into power (the scene is a great tour de force of music and cinematography). That’s the ‘Ming Vase’ that Tuco is throwing away once he gets to the cemetery.

https://youtu.be/ubVc2MQwMkg?si=asseLF2cxFmePu8R

Last edited 2 hours ago by Prashant Kotak
John Tyler
John Tyler
2 hours ago

Labour politics from the 1970s spun as something new; it was never going to impress anyone. Been there; got the T-shirt!