Our guest writer is Nick Pearce, director of the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr)
How should Labour respond to the spending review this week? The temptation will be to oppose the cuts without offering a clear alternative. But that would be a serious mistake. Labour needs to use the opportunity to reassert its economic credibility, to reclaim the mantle of being pro-business and pro-wealth creation, and to re-establish its reputation for straight talking. This means taking some difficult decisions on benefits, tax and spending.
As a contribution to the debate around the spending review, ippr has set out an alternative to George Osborne’s plan. The first key point is that the pace and scale of deficit reduction set out in the June Budget is both highly risky and unnecessary. It threatens the recovery and is not needed to reassure the markets.
The ippr plan suggests reducing the cyclically adjusted deficit over six years rather than four. Most critically, we think it is wrong to go ahead with cutting capital expenditure so sharply, which would see spending on areas like housing and transport fall from £39 billion this year to £20 billion in 2013/14. Sadly, this decision was gifted to the coalition by the last Labour government. It’s time to reverse it.
The ippr proposes that net investment is protected at around £30 billion, or 1.8 per cent of GDP; the level it was at in 2005/6, before the financial crisis. Investment in major infrastructure projects such as high speed rail, housing and low carbon energy will help to create badly needed jobs and promote long term growth.
But this spending commitment needs to be balanced with cuts elsewhere. Labour should drop its pre-election commitment to ring fence the NHS, schools and police numbers; protecting international development alone. If all departments except the Department for International Development faced cuts, no one department would need to bear a real cut of more than 10 per cent over the next four years.
The ippr supports the principle of universalism, but this doesn’t mean protecting all universal benefits. The Winter Fuel Allowance and free bus passes serve no pressing economic or social need for an increasingly prosperous pensioner generation. So they should be cut or taxed. We also need to accept that the VAT rise to 20 per cent is here to stay, however regrettable.
These are tough calls, but these are tough times. The ippr alternative plan offers progressives a robust, credible and costed alternative.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
18 Responses to “ippr: Our progressive spending review plan”
mezko
RT @leftfootfwd: ippr: Our progressive spending review plan: http://bit.ly/9yChXx by @ippr director Nick Pearce
Richard Moorhead
RT @leftfootfwd: ippr: Our progressive spending review plan: http://bit.ly/9yChXx by @ippr director Nick Pearce
Rick Muir
RT @leftfootfwd: ippr: Our progressive spending review plan: http://bit.ly/9yChXx by @ippr director Nick Pearce
Robert
“The ippr supports the principle of universalism, but this doesn’t mean protecting all universal benefits. The Winter Fuel Allowance and free bus passes serve no pressing economic or social need for an increasingly prosperous pensioner generation. So they should be cut or taxed. We also need to accept that the VAT rise to 20 per cent is here to stay, however regrettable”.
Then Dear Boy we might as well stay with the Tories, if living under New labour means living on a pension of £130 a week means we have to cut bus passes, heating for the people at the bottom, affecting the real disabled or even these that pretend because if your willing to go to your doctors tell them you disabled your bloody sick in the head.
If we are heading for voting for a leader because he has a sexy smile, we already had that with Blair and to many young men gave their lives for this.
I’ve left the labour party and it looks more and more what we have now is two parties who’s only aim is to cut from those that have the least while allowing those people who really caused the crises to get away with it.
It’s also time to remove charity status from so called bloody think tanks, they are not charities they are political groups…
jeff marks
if we want to save money, how about cutting all out of work benefits after 3 months. then we can make the pensioners live like kings and have plenty left over to help developing countries adjust to ‘global warming’.