Skip to main content

A bold Labour manifesto

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.

 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

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods.  Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects?  A new report now provides some of the answers. New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism. Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases cau