The Tories want only to talk about the deficit- which, by
the way, they’re not reducing- when the real issue at this election is jobs,
living standards, and sustainable growth. So why isn’t Labour attacking far
harder the disastrous Tory economic record?
The facts are clear. Osborne’s expansionary fiscal
contraction has squeezed wages by an unprecedented 8-10% in real terms.
Productivity, on which all future growth depends, is almost the lowest in the
G20. Business investment is anaemic with the FTSE 100 companies sitting on cash
stockpiles of nearly £700bn because they don’t believe either that Osborne’s ‘recovery’
has legs. The balance of payments deficit in traded goods is the worst in
British history because with Tory neglect of manufacturing we cannot pay our
way in the world. Unemployment is still nearly two million, and even the jobs
that have been created are low paid, insecure, and often subject to zero hours
contracts. Household indebtedness is now over £2 trillion and increasing.
To cap it all, bringing down the deficit, which is
allegedly the whole purpose of this burgeoning economic disaster, isn’t happening
either. Osborne predicted this year it would be £37 billion, it’s actually
nearly £100 billion. More worrying still, the reason it’s not fallen, because
contracting wages has contracted the Governments tax receipts as well, mean
that it won’t fall significantly in future years, and may even rise. So why
does Osborne continue to make such a totem of it? Because the real Tory aim is
not to reduce the deficit as such at all, but rather to shrink the State (as he
has himself said, to 1930s levels,) to squeeze the public sector, and to shift
from public services to a fully marketised private State.
So why doesn’t Labour attach this hammer and tongs
instead of just saying we’ll cut a little less than the Tories- the same policies
as the Tories, but a little less painful? If it’s fear of being taken as
profligate, why doesn’t Labour retaliate that in Labours 11 years to the crash
(1997-2008) the deficit was never higher than 3.3% of GDP, whereas Thatcher-Major
racked up deficits bigger than this in 10 out of their 18 years?
So what should Labour be saying? When private investment
is flat on its back, public investment is needed to kick-start the economy into
sustainable growth, jobs, rising incomes, and the growing tax receipts to
really pay down the deficit. We need public investment in house building,
infrastructure, and a low carbon economy. At 0.5% interest rates a £30 billion
investment package sufficient to create 1-1.5 million jobs within 2-3 years can
be paid for at a cost of only £150 million a year.
Better still, it could be funded at no increase in public
borrowing at all either by instructing the public banks, RBS and Lloyds, to
prioritise lending to British industry rather than overseas speculation, or by
a further tranche of quantitative easing targeted directly to industry rather
than the banks, or by taxing the ultra-rich whose wealth, according to the
Sunday Times Rich List, has expanded from a cool £250 billion to a scarcely
imaginable £500 billion
With devastating aplomb Michael Meacher hits the nail on the head and writes the political obituary of the Labour Party describing its stance (essentially) as "the SAME policies as the Tories but a little less painful"
ReplyDeleteAt last the truth is out : the Red Tories = the Blue Tories. As if we needed telling.
Blair's recent endorsement of Miliband also demonstrates that nothing has changed : SAME party, different leader.