Though Cowards Flinch

Brendan Barber yesterday kicked off the war for the meaning of the economic recovery. Speaking in Liverpool to the TUC, he said, “I am so horrified when I hear the Conservatives talk of public expenditure cuts which would turn any progress towards economic recovery into a nose dive back into recession.” Cuts in public spending would result in a ‘double-quick, double-dip’ fall in the economy.

Gordon Brown wasn’t content to leave it at that though: his own speech made a play for the meaning of the recovery also. “”People’s livelihoods and homes and savings are still hanging in the balance, and so today I say to you: don’t put the recovery at risk…We have to make tough choices in public spending and we will need the support of the labour movement in protecting the front line first.” The two rival meanings should be clear.

On the one hand, the leader of the Trades Union Congress makes it clear that high levels of government spending are imperative for the recovery to continue. On the other, the Prime Minister uses the recovery as blackmail against the Trades Union movement: do not strike, permit the government to sack who it wants and to undermine what pensions it wishes or you will threaten the recovery.

The subtext is this; either Labour make the cuts softly, softly or the Conservatives will make the unions pay dearly for daring to stand up for their members.

Listening to the radio over the weekend, it was clear that certain parts of the media are trying to read in Barber’s words a challenge to the PM. Mandelson spoke at LSE to strike out at both Labour’s left and the Tories. Meanwhile, the Lib-Dem council of Leeds has managed to provoke a refuse collectors’ strike by attempting to cut wages by £6000 – and several union chiefs have threatened industrial action should cuts continue.

Vince Cable has said that we need to move towards talking about defence cuts, public sector pension cuts and tax credits (cuts, presumably?). David Cameron is talking up the idea of decreasing the number of MPs as a way to reduce the cost of parliament to the nation. This war for the meaning of the recession and its recovery looks likely to frame the next general election – and not in a way favourable to Labour.

A YouGov poll for the Sunday Times yesterday highlighted some of the key problems. First, between them, the Tories and Labour only amass 52% of the trust of the population in managing public sector debt and services. A potential election winning sized chunk of the population think both are crap – though of course, this is not how the Tory lapdog newspapers are painting the issue, preferring a bit of triumphalism.

Yet, despite the rhetoric of William Rees-Mogg and the rest of the dipshit wing of the Tory Party (yes, I know he’s a cross bencher – who is that fooling?), the idea that the voters know what they want is a ludicrous one. Rees-Mogg attacks the ‘quangocracy’ and public expenditure:

“Gordon Brown is still talking about the need to protect public expenditure, instead of explaining that the British economy needs protection from the growing overload of public debt. The public understand what is happening better than the Prime Minister.”

Many things fall under the broad heading of ‘public expenditure’. Personally I’d challenge almost anyone from that 60% to name the areas in which they want public expenditure cut – and I’ll bet that for the vast majority of them, the three biggest areas of spending will not be the ones they want cut: health, education and social security and welfare. Yet things like defence make up only 5% of the national budget.

Rees-Mogg declares that Cameron et al will have to win a battle with the quangocracy if he and his government is to succeed in cutting public expenditure. I doubt very much that most of the public could name a quango that they think should be got rid of, or have its spending remit cut. This is one of the problems with relying on polls; they can give snapshot opinions but they don’t show how much or little thought lies behind them.

It is a common media (and therefore popular) meme that welfare should be cut, that the unions are growing too uppity and that public pensions are too lavish. Except for the vastest majority of public sector workers, the pension is really all they have; they are not paid well and in exchange they receive a (relatively) comfortable retirement – which isn’t what it once was anyway. Similarly for welfare.

There are three million people unemployed; are the press suggesting they’re all scroungers? The current welfare rules are pretty tough  – something no one seems to take into account. Of course none of the papers are talking about £10bn loophole that could be closed in the private pension schemes of the wealthy. It’s got to be down to the unions to do this – to mobilize to fight the battle for the public purse that Brendan Barber kicked off.

Even if the Conservatives win the election, fighting this battle undermines their position before Cameron even gets through the door to number 10. If they don’t fight it, then the scenario Tim Montgomerie outlines here goes ahead with zero capable opposition.