Greg Clark is Financial Secretary to the Treasury and MP for Tunbridge Wells. Follow Greg on Twitter.
“The truth,” says Peter Oborne in a typically compelling article for the Daily Telegraph last week, “is that Mr Balls isn’t any good as shadow chancellor.” Oborne adds that “this is an open secret in the Labour Party.”
There aren’t many benefits to being out of power, but one of them is the freedom to develop new policy, unfettered by the immediate demands of government. The key policies that the current Government is implementing now – for instance, on reducing the deficit, restoring educational standards, reforming welfare, controlling immigration and localising power – first took shape while we were in opposition.
The policy work that was done before the election is an important reason why, despite the complications of coalition government, we’ve been able to pursue a demanding programme reform right from day one.
If nothing else, a good Opposition should at least be able to engage with the Government on a serious, intellectual level – challenging the ideas that underpin government policy, proposing alternatives and, perhaps, in the process of argument and counter-argument, advancing our common understanding of the great issues of the day.
But there is no such engagement from Labour. Ballsism, if we can speak of such a thing, is all about frustrating thoughtful analysis of any kind. It operates according to its own internal rules, which can be summarised as follows: Admit no mistakes; avoid consistency; propose nothing new. Let’s look at these in more detail:
To admit no mistakes, to avoid consistency, to propose nothing new may give the impression that the shadow chancellor doesn’t know what to do. That, however, isn’t quite right. In fact, this approach is quite deliberate.
Ten years ago I wrote a book entitled Total Politics, which exposed the ruthless politicisation of the state in order to further the power of the Labour Government. Communication, funding, audit, inspection, regulation: the means of administration were all bent to political ends. Now, with the levers of power out of Labour hands, Balls has adapted the practice of total politics to the circumstances of opposition.
The absence of self-criticism, coherence and innovation in Labour’s economic policy making are all calculated. The idea is that minimal policy allows maximum politics. Having nothing to defend provides Labour with the greatest freedom to attack.
That, however, is all it does. It is essentially destructive, rather than constructive, in nature. By the time of the next election, voters will want to know what kind of future a Labour Government would build for them – or, at least, what kind of future a Labour Government would let people build for themselves.
And at that point, if not long before, it will be clear that these years of opposition have been wasted.