This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/14/labour-tory-attack-vision-voters-fiscal-policy

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Labour should stop flinching at every Tory attack and sell its vision to voters Labour should stop flinching at every Tory attack and sell its vision to voters
(less than a minute earlier)
For a prime minister seeking election on a record of budget discipline, David Cameron has written a lot of blank cheques. The latest recipients are anti-terrorist forces whose task looks more urgent after last week’s massacre in Paris. “We will put the resources in,” Cameron pledged. “Whatever the security services need, they will get.”For a prime minister seeking election on a record of budget discipline, David Cameron has written a lot of blank cheques. The latest recipients are anti-terrorist forces whose task looks more urgent after last week’s massacre in Paris. “We will put the resources in,” Cameron pledged. “Whatever the security services need, they will get.”
In the league of public goods, the spooks now rank alongside flood defences, for which the prime minister once said money was no object. (Money was an object.) Lesser immunity from cuts has been granted to pensioner benefits, schools, overseas aid, infrastructure projects and the NHS. Cameron has also promised £7bn in unfunded tax cuts.In the league of public goods, the spooks now rank alongside flood defences, for which the prime minister once said money was no object. (Money was an object.) Lesser immunity from cuts has been granted to pensioner benefits, schools, overseas aid, infrastructure projects and the NHS. Cameron has also promised £7bn in unfunded tax cuts.
That doesn’t make the Tories a party of reckless spending; it just proves Cameron is susceptible to the politics of selective belt-loosening – easing austerity under duress. He expects to get away with it because voters will not be comparing him to an abstract ideal of fiscal rigour but to Ed Miliband, of whom the Tories will allege failure to grasp even basic belt-fastening.That doesn’t make the Tories a party of reckless spending; it just proves Cameron is susceptible to the politics of selective belt-loosening – easing austerity under duress. He expects to get away with it because voters will not be comparing him to an abstract ideal of fiscal rigour but to Ed Miliband, of whom the Tories will allege failure to grasp even basic belt-fastening.
To that end, George Osborne called a vote in parliament on a “charter for budget responsibility”, enshrining in statute a commitment to balance the books. The logic of the trap is that if Labour opposed it, Miliband would be exposed as a deficit denier; yet by voting in favour, he invites unwelcome interrogation of where he intends to wield the axe. Osborne also hopes that the sight of opposition MPs dancing to a Tory tune will divert anti-austerity protest votes from Labour to the Greens.To that end, George Osborne called a vote in parliament on a “charter for budget responsibility”, enshrining in statute a commitment to balance the books. The logic of the trap is that if Labour opposed it, Miliband would be exposed as a deficit denier; yet by voting in favour, he invites unwelcome interrogation of where he intends to wield the axe. Osborne also hopes that the sight of opposition MPs dancing to a Tory tune will divert anti-austerity protest votes from Labour to the Greens.
Miliband dismissed the charter as a gimmick, and ordered his MPs to vote for it. So the gimmick is also the consensus. There is always more symbolism to fiscal policy than either side likes to admit. People notice tax changes in their pay slip and feel the gap where a children’s centre used to be, but it is hard to capture that experience in a campaign with strings of numbers. And it is easy to cook up a figure with plenty of noughts to make it sound as if something is being done when voters demand it.Miliband dismissed the charter as a gimmick, and ordered his MPs to vote for it. So the gimmick is also the consensus. There is always more symbolism to fiscal policy than either side likes to admit. People notice tax changes in their pay slip and feel the gap where a children’s centre used to be, but it is hard to capture that experience in a campaign with strings of numbers. And it is easy to cook up a figure with plenty of noughts to make it sound as if something is being done when voters demand it.
Hence Osborne’s discovery last December of a spare £2bn “downpayment” for the NHS. This was “departmental underspend” that the chancellor had chosen not to absorb back into Treasury coffers. So money that had already been allocated for health was still going to health, but with pre-election bells on.Hence Osborne’s discovery last December of a spare £2bn “downpayment” for the NHS. This was “departmental underspend” that the chancellor had chosen not to absorb back into Treasury coffers. So money that had already been allocated for health was still going to health, but with pre-election bells on.
In opposition, when policy is hypothetical anyway, symbolism takes the lead. For the first years of this parliament, Labour used a tax on bankers’ bonuses as a putative slush fund to support regional growth, deficit reduction and house-building, before deciding it would pay for a youth jobs guarantee. Labour’s “mansion tax” on properties worth over £2m was also a multipurpose revenue-raiser, before it settled down as a bailout pot for the NHS.In opposition, when policy is hypothetical anyway, symbolism takes the lead. For the first years of this parliament, Labour used a tax on bankers’ bonuses as a putative slush fund to support regional growth, deficit reduction and house-building, before deciding it would pay for a youth jobs guarantee. Labour’s “mansion tax” on properties worth over £2m was also a multipurpose revenue-raiser, before it settled down as a bailout pot for the NHS.
It isn’t an answer to the question of how an ageing society supports a model of socialised medicine when costs rise faster than budgets. But no one has the solution to that problem. As with Cameron’s calculations over the deficit, there is no Platonic ideal of policy on the ballot paper. Miliband just needs Labour to be trusted to care about the NHS more than the Tories.It isn’t an answer to the question of how an ageing society supports a model of socialised medicine when costs rise faster than budgets. But no one has the solution to that problem. As with Cameron’s calculations over the deficit, there is no Platonic ideal of policy on the ballot paper. Miliband just needs Labour to be trusted to care about the NHS more than the Tories.
On that front, Miliband’s biggest problem is not the Conservatives but those on his own side who can’t stomach a levy on big houses to pay nurses’ salaries. London MPs, prominent among them potential candidates for the city’s mayoral race next year, grumble that the tax punishes the capital (a concern dismissed by one shadow cabinet minister as channelling the self-serving whinge of London’s “luvvie dinner-party set”).On that front, Miliband’s biggest problem is not the Conservatives but those on his own side who can’t stomach a levy on big houses to pay nurses’ salaries. London MPs, prominent among them potential candidates for the city’s mayoral race next year, grumble that the tax punishes the capital (a concern dismissed by one shadow cabinet minister as channelling the self-serving whinge of London’s “luvvie dinner-party set”).
Beyond London, there are concerns among Labour MPs that the tax, even if popular in isolation, is pernicious when combined with other complaints about capitalism – that it stirs up a nasty whiff of old Labour as the party that resents people having money.Beyond London, there are concerns among Labour MPs that the tax, even if popular in isolation, is pernicious when combined with other complaints about capitalism – that it stirs up a nasty whiff of old Labour as the party that resents people having money.
Miliband’s strategists dismiss that concern as a hangover from the party’s mid-90s obsession with middle-class aspiration. In the current climate, they say, the middle class is struggling to keep its head above water and is more focused on the state of public services than the market for £2m properties. The more Conservatives complain about the injustice of taxing detached houses in Notting Hill, the more people think Cameron’s views of how people live is detached from reality.Miliband’s strategists dismiss that concern as a hangover from the party’s mid-90s obsession with middle-class aspiration. In the current climate, they say, the middle class is struggling to keep its head above water and is more focused on the state of public services than the market for £2m properties. The more Conservatives complain about the injustice of taxing detached houses in Notting Hill, the more people think Cameron’s views of how people live is detached from reality.
By contrast, many Tories are convinced Labour can be painted as the party that loves to tax. Since Miliband won’t say where his cuts will fall, Cameron surmises that he will come after the assets of lower earners once he has gobbled all he can from the mansion-dwellers. That threat has little purchase on the public imagination, except when Labour MPs act as if they too fear that a latent appetite for confiscation will be woken in the guts of the party.By contrast, many Tories are convinced Labour can be painted as the party that loves to tax. Since Miliband won’t say where his cuts will fall, Cameron surmises that he will come after the assets of lower earners once he has gobbled all he can from the mansion-dwellers. That threat has little purchase on the public imagination, except when Labour MPs act as if they too fear that a latent appetite for confiscation will be woken in the guts of the party.
It is when opposition MPs look squeamish about their own policies that Cameron succeeds in sowing doubt about their credibility. The problem isn’t exclusive to left or right. Guardians of the New Labour flame fret about gestures of redistribution that radiate class envy; the anti-austerity left bemoans surrender to Tory terms on the deficit.It is when opposition MPs look squeamish about their own policies that Cameron succeeds in sowing doubt about their credibility. The problem isn’t exclusive to left or right. Guardians of the New Labour flame fret about gestures of redistribution that radiate class envy; the anti-austerity left bemoans surrender to Tory terms on the deficit.
In reality, Miliband and Ed Balls have navigated a middle-way position. Labour’s budget plans are tight but looser than Osborne’s. Miliband’s policy towards business is hardly Bolshevik: his stated aim is to fix markets not ban them. Yet somehow detractors on the left hear only reassurances to the right, and detractors on the right fixate on appeasement of the left. So Labour’s endless self-criticism makes it look simultaneously hostile to enterprise and reluctant about budget discipline – which is what the Tories say it is, not what Miliband’s policies declare.In reality, Miliband and Ed Balls have navigated a middle-way position. Labour’s budget plans are tight but looser than Osborne’s. Miliband’s policy towards business is hardly Bolshevik: his stated aim is to fix markets not ban them. Yet somehow detractors on the left hear only reassurances to the right, and detractors on the right fixate on appeasement of the left. So Labour’s endless self-criticism makes it look simultaneously hostile to enterprise and reluctant about budget discipline – which is what the Tories say it is, not what Miliband’s policies declare.
The leader has to take some of the blame. Fiddly tactical positioning has taken precedence over clear exposition of Miliband’s instincts. And compelling expression of instinct is not his forte. But the party also needs to recognise that the compromise at which it has arrived may well be the best available under the circumstances. It is definitely the only one available. It is also saleable to voters who are hardly besotted with the coalition.The leader has to take some of the blame. Fiddly tactical positioning has taken precedence over clear exposition of Miliband’s instincts. And compelling expression of instinct is not his forte. But the party also needs to recognise that the compromise at which it has arrived may well be the best available under the circumstances. It is definitely the only one available. It is also saleable to voters who are hardly besotted with the coalition.
The greater problem now isn’t what the opposition is saying but its body language. The Tory attacks are not deadly. They work because, even when faced with a wild lunge that lands way off target, Labour still flinches.The greater problem now isn’t what the opposition is saying but its body language. The Tory attacks are not deadly. They work because, even when faced with a wild lunge that lands way off target, Labour still flinches.