The Labour Party has produced a bold manifesto. Already there is a queue of pundits telling the media it can't be afforded. The reality though is different. We cannot afford not to do this. It is a significant investment to ensure we tackle poverty, fund the health and care services, building houses hard-working families can afford while ensuring we have the right kind of investment in critical infrastructure and the skills businesses need.
The IFS has already produced its own costings. It is a balance sheet of how much the immediate costs are and where the revenue would come from. It doesn't give the entire picture.
Over time investment in bringing people out of poverty and investment in health and green jobs will itself increase tax revenue. It will begin to pay for itself over time.
I suppose voters might say, pull the other one, but history demonstrates that when governments made similar spending in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, the national debt fell and governments ran surpluses.
The reason for that is because Tory governments through the 80s and onwards tended to push up unemployment as a 'price worth paying'. They increased poverty and this, in turn, increased the welfare bill. Pushing people into poverty costs. It has been estimated to cost the country some £75 billion per year in lost revenue and welfare payments.
Poor health reduces productivity and affects businesses. We have one of the sluggish productive growth records in Europe.
Our business says there is a shortage of skilled workers they need to expand. This is why investment in education and apprenticeships is vital. Again, the benefits will be increased revenue in years to come.
We need bold moves on transforming our society to help tackle climate change. That cannot be done without cost. Saving our planet is a worthwhile investment.
Don't let them tell you this isn't affordable. The spending proposed by Labour is little more than the average in Europe, such as Germany.
Britain needs a bold initiative. For so long voters have tended to view the choices before them as much of a muchness. So often we heard the comment 'they are all the same'. It was certainly true that the differences between the parties were about the size of a pin-head.
For too long, the left in British politics has been afraid of its shadow. The election of 1983 will haunt Labour. Will this Labour Manifesto be another 'suicide note', as Labour manifesto was then described. Or are British voters ready for such change? The next few weeks will tell.
The IFS has already produced its own costings. It is a balance sheet of how much the immediate costs are and where the revenue would come from. It doesn't give the entire picture.
Over time investment in bringing people out of poverty and investment in health and green jobs will itself increase tax revenue. It will begin to pay for itself over time.
I suppose voters might say, pull the other one, but history demonstrates that when governments made similar spending in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, the national debt fell and governments ran surpluses.
Historically, Labour governments have run smaller deficits than tory ones.
The reason for that is because Tory governments through the 80s and onwards tended to push up unemployment as a 'price worth paying'. They increased poverty and this, in turn, increased the welfare bill. Pushing people into poverty costs. It has been estimated to cost the country some £75 billion per year in lost revenue and welfare payments.
Poor health reduces productivity and affects businesses. We have one of the sluggish productive growth records in Europe.
Our business says there is a shortage of skilled workers they need to expand. This is why investment in education and apprenticeships is vital. Again, the benefits will be increased revenue in years to come.
Investment in the skills businesses say they need
We need bold moves on transforming our society to help tackle climate change. That cannot be done without cost. Saving our planet is a worthwhile investment.
Don't let them tell you this isn't affordable. The spending proposed by Labour is little more than the average in Europe, such as Germany.
Britain needs a bold initiative. For so long voters have tended to view the choices before them as much of a muchness. So often we heard the comment 'they are all the same'. It was certainly true that the differences between the parties were about the size of a pin-head.
For too long, the left in British politics has been afraid of its shadow. The election of 1983 will haunt Labour. Will this Labour Manifesto be another 'suicide note', as Labour manifesto was then described. Or are British voters ready for such change? The next few weeks will tell.
Comments
Post a Comment