Same But Different

Now I've been saying this for a long time - no UK political party will have a mandate to govern after the next  Westminster election - because no one will get anywhere near even 40% of the popular vote.

The trade unions may behave as if the vast majority of ordinary members are steadfast Labour supporters, but no one believes this nonsense - it's simply not true.

So the sooner that people who dabble in politics, including party policitians, face up to this new reality - then the sooner we can get on with the job of tackling the serious economic and social problems facing the country.   

Party politics is not capable of conjuring out of thin air - a magical or painless cure to the reality that 'there's no more money' as the Labour Treasury Minister - Liam Byrne - famously said as he demitted office in 2010.

The way back to some kind of normality is to do relatively non-controversial things - like collecting tax more efficiently and effectively - and reducing the huge cost of the welfare state, for example, while protecting the genuinely vulnerable. 

But this doesn't require every issue to be turned into an enormous political football - which is what tends to happen now as rival parties exaggerate differences and pretend that they would do things completely differently - which we all know they won't, of course.  

And here's what Martin Kettle from the Guardian has to say on the subject.     

Coalitions and austerity: Britain better get used to them

It's the great new reality of British politics, and all the parties are in the same boat: fighting austerity elections for years to come

By Martin Kettle

'The economy is not recovering, but surviving. Politics is taking time to adjust. At present it is like an F1 race permanently led by a safety car.'

No political party or established political culture is at ease with the kind of politics we are in at the moment. The Tory party hates coalition, and dreams of reigniting a Thatcherite revolution if it improbably triumphs in 2015. Labour, meanwhile, dreams of a social democratic Britain of the kind that eluded successive Labour governments. And the Liberal Democrats dream of doubling their number of MPs by 2030. Honestly, they do.

The truth, though, is that these are all largely fantasies. The reality of British politics is at the interface between Liam Byrne's infamous "there's no more money" remark in 2010, and the general decline of the major political parties that has been so marked over half a century. In the immediate postwar period almost everyone voted Labour or Conservative. Now no more than two-thirds of voters do. The result is coalitions – either between parties or within them.

The central fact about British politics in 2013 is that we are beginning to get it. The economy is not recovering, but surviving. Politics is taking time to adjust. At present it is like an F1 race permanently led by a safety car. The rebalancing of the economy is talked about and desired on all sides but isn't happening because, short of a command economy for which there is no serious appetite and which would almost certainly fail in its own way, it cannot be legislated. The financial sector still overshadows everything else. And the deficit is too large.

So political parties find themselves, against their will and instincts, all in the same boat. The Tories still hate higher taxes. Labour still hates cutting government programmes. The arguments between the parties are still real. But they are constrained by the single great fact of austerity. And austerity is not going to go away.

The public mood is not really for radical change, although there is a flirtation from time to time. Make the bankers pay. Leave the EU. Invest in this. Cut that. Punish immigrants. Encourage more skilled migrants. But the public reality was attested by this week's Institute for Fiscal Studies report on the decline of real wages – the longest and deepest loss of output in a century, with productivity levels dropping sharply and real wages falling by more – 6% – than in any comparable five-year period.

It was underscored too in Wednesday's unemployment figures. The bulk of jobs growth is in part-time work and self-employment, not traditional full-time jobs. And pay is failing to keep abreast of inflation, as it has done without interruption for over three years.

All this supports the picture of people staying in work and accepting lower pay or shorter hours rather than allowing themselves to fall into unemployment. If you could sum up the public mood in a sentence, it might be: "Things are getting worse but I'd rather hang on in there somehow, even at a cost." That's a new mood, not heroic except in its will to survive – and political parties, with their comfortable visions and urge to do something memorable, are struggling to adapt to it.

The economic and the political implications of this collective battening down of the hatches are daunting. It leaves all political parties constrained. Some condemn them for this, sometimes from within the parties themselves, more often from the sidelines or from protest parties. But the parties may deserve more support for their realism than they are receiving. The first thing one wants from any government is to understand the situation it faces.

Naturally, there are options about what to do. The Conservatives could be much more Thatcherite if they weren't so aware of how unpopular that would be. Labour always has the Keynesian option of taxing and spending to boost the economy. But that won't do much to address the deficit, and there is no sign at all of a widespread public appetite for it.

The truth is that politics has changed and that the change will last a long time. A week ago the IFS argued, in yet another report, that the failure to balance the budget deficit by 2014-15, as planned in 2010, means that the next parliament may be just as dominated by spending controls and efficiency savings as this one has been. Most of the deficit, after all, is structural, so can't be reduced by growth alone. Difficult decisions about programmes and entitlements are not going to disappear even if sustained growth returns.

Party leaders understand this. David Cameron clearly does. This month's spending review will offer more – a lot more – of the same, and the prospect of large further cuts still to come during the next parliament. It's not where he would like to be, but where he is. But last week's speeches by Ed Miliband and Ed Balls show they get it too in their own way. If there is a Labour government after 2015, it will not only cap the welfare budget – the details are a source of dispute – but will cut departmental spending still further.

This is not a great ideological battle. That dimension is often exaggerated. The difference between a public spending-to-GDP ratio of 40% and one of 50% is a significant one. But beware the narcissism of small differences. The big truth is that any government will spend 40%, not that there is an argument about another 10% between the parties. That said, it is high time the left had a debate about the figure that it prefers. There is certainly a limit below which a decent level of solidarity is not possible. But it is not self-evident that higher is invariably better or sustainable.

Is it pretty? No. Are there alternatives? Certainly. But they have to be consistent with looking reality in the eye. Since many of the problems are shared with other parts of Europe, it makes sense to address them together, not in competition. But looking in the other direction is not a serious option. The figures and the graphs tell stories of opportunity and contain truths that cannot be ignored. Not only will the 2015 election now be an austerity election, but the 2020 election may be one as well. Better get used to it.