Government can stumble through only so many crises

STRONG and stable leadership were not to the fore within the UK Government yesterday as a double U-turn appeared to leave Theresa May and her cabinet back where they started.

Earlier, Number 10 had briefed that a seven-year public sector pay cap was to be lifted. Planned to last until 2020, the one per cent limit on pay rises for those in public employ would be reviewed in the autumn, lobby correspondents were told.

Hours later, perhaps in response to Chancellor Philip Hammond objecting to having his pursestrings snapped, a Number 10 spokesman insisted the pay-cap policy had not changed.

Meanwhile Labour, with SNP support, was attempting to have a motion passed calling for the cap to be dropped. With Labour’s revival in the General Election built partly on an anti-austerity agenda, the narrative that people have had enough of belt-tightening has been widely accepted.

It was Mr Hammond himself who warned that the public had become “weary” of austerity after “seven years of hard slog”. Former minister Oliver Letwin is among those Tories admitting there is a case for “easing up” on austerity.

In reality, Mrs May’s social care U-turn and catastrophic refusal to engage with the public, or her opponents, may have had a bigger influence on the election outcome.

But the latest social attitudes survey shows a considerable shift in public opinion, with those calling for taxes to rise to pay for public services outnumbering those backing the status quo for the first time since 2006. It is not just that people want more spent on the NHS, education and police. The survey found that more than two-thirds of us believe disabled people should be given more benefits and barely one in five believe social security claimants are fiddling the system, the lowest figure for 30 years.

The truth is that there was always a debate about the efficacy of austerity. Many European countries have rejected the approach entirely, on the basis that struggling economies can be stifled by such measures. The Oxford University economist, Professor David Stuckler, is among those arguing forcefully against it. If it were a medical intervention, it would have been abandoned after the first trials, he argues, because of the grave side-effects.

Some on the Right will continue to argue that austerity must continue until the deficit is “under control” or eliminated completely. But it may be that neither outcome can be achieved by austerity.

Even if such policies are ended tomorrow, they will continue to have an effect. Pay rates left far behind by cost of living increases, the missing local council services and harsh welfare reforms will continue to cause pain.

It is time to drop these outdated, failed approaches. It is time for a government that vowed there was no magic money tree, until it needed to buy off the DUP, to admit there are alternatives.

Can this limping Conservative administration pull together sufficiently to change direction? On yesterday’s evidence, many more will have their doubts.