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

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As