Don't let it be lazily said that Labour and the Conservatives are 'the same'
The next time someone (particularly someone on the left) tells you that Labour and the Conservatives are the same, point them to today’s Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) assessment of the parties’ spending plans for the next parliament.
We’ll start with the Conservatives.
Conservative plans for a reduction in borrowing in the next parliament require ‘some large spending cuts or tax increases’, as the IFS puts it. It adds:
Departments outside the NHS, education and aid look to be facing cuts of 17.9 per cent between 2014–15 and 2018–19. This would imply average cuts to these spending areas of one third in real terms from the start of austerity (in 2010-11) up to 2018-19. These ‘unprotected’ areas include defence, transport, law and order and social care.
As for Labour, according to the IFS:
[Labour] have pledged to ‘get a surplus on the current budget’ without specifying either exactly when or how much of a surplus. This pledge could be consistent with any reduction in borrowing totalling 3.6 per cent of national income or more (given the coalition government’s investment plans). A reduction in borrowing of 3.6 per cent of national income would require little in the way of spending cuts or tax increases after this year.
In terms of the measures required by Labour to bring about their plans, the IFS says that:
If [Labour] can find £7.5 billion of revenues from anti-avoidance measures, as they say they can, then they might need to find a mere £1 billion from further real cuts to unprotected departmental spending.
So there is a choice and it is between ‘cuts of 17.9 per cent between 2014–15 and 2018–19‘ and ‘little in the way of spending cuts or tax increases after this year“.
Don’t let it be lazily said that Labour and the Conservatives are ‘the same’.
James Bloodworth is the editor of Left Foot Forward. Follow him on Twitter
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.
35 Responses to “There are big differences between Labour and Conservative spending plans. The IFS just proved it”
Robert Gruder
I trust in believing what a party can achieve by their record… not their promises. The last three Labour governments left the economy in dire straits – the worst being that triggered specifically by Miliband and Ball’s own policies. The Tory’s end this parliament with record employment, minimum inflation, highest economic growth for any major economy, higher real incomes (and growing) and major growth for Britain as a manufacturing nation. I’m no supporter of Tory social philosophy, but I can recognise competence when I see it.
littleoddsandpieces
Public spending does not cause a recession.
Politicians do not rule the economy. Capitalist high finance does that.
Austerity was done in the 1920s, caused a boom to fall flat and did nothing to stop the 1929 Depression’s banking crash.
The Lehman Bros crashed in 2008 and nearly took the world’s banking system with it.
Labour had absolutely nothing to do with anything.
VOTE SITTING LABOUR MP SAVE WHERE
TUSC – REVERSE RISE IN RETIREMENT AGE – DECENT STATE PENSION
or
Socialist GB,
or
Class War,
or
The Left Unity Party
MP or council councillor candidate running.
Vote SNP in Scotland in LABOUR, TORY AND LIB DEM VOTING areas.
Vote Plaid Cymru in Wales even in Labour areas, save where there are a few TUSC in South Wales.
Labour did not win even more than the Tories in 2010.
More people did not vote than voted, so no so-called big party won.
The biggest margins are in Labour voting areas, where such voting as Labour win with around 10,000 votes, agaisnt 50,000 not voting.
LABOUR CANNOT RULE UK PARLIAMENT
EVEN IF GET MORE MPs
326 MP minimum threshold to rule UK parliament.
Labour only had around 250 MPs from 2010, so cannot possibly make up the difference.
Even if Labour got more MPs than Tories, neither of them will reach that minimum threshold.
RULES OF PARLIAMENT MEAN TORIES ARE OBLIGED TO STAY IN GOVERNMENT
The Tories have to remain in power in a severe hung parliament, in a caretaker government, by the rules of UK parliament.
VOTE DIFFERENT – BRING IN AN EQUAL BLOC OF ANTI AUSTERITY PARTIES TO EITHER LABOUR OR TORY MPs
IN UK PARLIAMENT
Bring in around 250 new, guaranteed anti austerity parties as MP into UK government.
Equal to number of Tory or Labour MPs.
RULES OF UK PARLIAMENT
A GROUP OF PARTIES CAN EQUALLY NEGOTIATE
BETWEEN EACH OTHER
AND NOT JUST LABOUR
Labour will have to utterly change to an anti austerity party, instead of saying they will not reverse the Tory cuts nor change anything in the last Tory budget.
Neither will Labour revoke the Coalition’s Pension Bills 2010-2014 (flat rate state pension) that will see the descendants who fought to bring about the Labour with NIL STATE PENSION FOR LIFE.
The poorest workers long ago were dumped out of the welfare state and state pension by the LOWER EARNINGS LEVEL denying them any automatic National Insurance credits.
The flat rate state pension leaves them and many other people, but especially women, with NIL STATE PENSION FOR LIFE.
See why, at end of my petition, in my WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT section:
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/state-pension-at-60-now
Cole
Rubbish. There was a worldwide recession at the end of the last Labour government. Gordon Brown didn’t cause this, and Labour’s spending levels were backed by Osborne. By 2010 the economy was beginning to grow before Osborne screwed it up.
As for previous Labour governments, yes, there was a mess in 1979, caused largely by irresponsible wildcat strikes; in 1970, the economy was in pretty good shape.
What about the Tory governments? Not great in 1964, a total meltdown in 1974, and such an unpopular government in 1997 that Blair got a record majority (and was re-elected twice).
Guest
Ah yes, a recovery, “dire straits”. You of course prefer lower wages and a bubble in the city.
You praise, specifically;
Record LOW hours worked per worker
LOW real incomes, and with very low rates of increase
Deflation, which is highly damaging
The economy shrinks, outside the city
Manufacturing in dire straits
You evidently don’t support the Tories, but rather campaign for them and their goals, as you recognise they’re incompetent and thus promote them.
Leon Wolfeson
The thing is, Labour’s promise is wooly and completely undermined by other policies of theirs which shadow those of the Tories, such as their promise to massively slash benefits with the overall benefit cap, which will further slash revenue and could indeed make the Tories target look optimistic.
In fact, Labour seem to be where the Tories were in the last election, promising something which looks better without properly specifying how to do it, and likely to screw it up. Sadly.