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
35 Responses to “There are big differences between Labour and Conservative spending plans. The IFS just proved it”
nodbod
Leon, just did not want to be too pointed. The growth is a sham, concentrated in the south and London (though I live in the south and do not see too much evidence personally).
Disgusted of Totter's Lane
“I’m talking about Labour, not your fantasy image of them.”
*Ironymeter explodes*
“Your position there is a fair reading of your position of course”
I know you are, ‘cos you said you are, but what am I?
“For myself and my actual views…”
What, 100% rabid Blairism with no “maybe” about it?
“the leftists – from various parts of the spectrum – I discuss things with”
These nuanced and mutually enlightening “discussions” of which you speak: do they by any chance consist mainly of you assuming the worst of everyone you disagree with on some specific policy point, then insisting in the face of anything they say to the contrary that they are in fact just Tory stooges?
“I’m a Mutualist… I’ll keep fighting for voting reform”
An anarchist who believes in “reforming” the institutions of the state? Erm… OK…
Anyway, I should know by now not to get into these “discussions” on the internet, so I’ll leave it there I think.
Robert
Who’s facts is the question, they seem to be rather thin on the ground those facts.
Guest
Stop shooting other people’s ironymeters, then, American.
PS, do look up mutualism sometime. And not on Wikipedia.
Leon Wolfeson
As far as I can see form the figures it’s concentrated in the City. Very much so. Remember London also has some of the poorest areas of Britain.