Getting the Tories out is the main goal
of many on the left for Thursday’s election.
My gut agrees, but in the final weekend before the election, I realised
that I wanted a more logical conclusion on this. I’ve included below various interesting sources that I found and would recommend. I considered the
following questions.
1. Is austerity built on shaky foundations?
These two articles (from cross bench peer Robert Skidelsky in the New Statesman
and economist Paul Krugman in the Guardian) go into detail on why austerity and
deficit reduction weren't the only options for the Coalition. I am relatively
sympathetic to the view that austerity was a popular approach in 2010 and
economists seem better at analysis of the past than the future, but less
sympathetic to the level this foundation was and continues to be relied upon by
the Tories.
2. Can austerity support strong
economic growth?
This seems to a major theme from the Tories. The idea that they were forced
into austerity, but they’ve still supported relatively strong economic growth. I’m not convinced
that this is the full story especially with the coincidence that the higher
growth started when further cuts were significantly reduced and instead pushed forward
to the next parliament.
The following is a quote from Robert Skidelsky’s article referenced
above.
“Growth’s failure to materialise dished the Chancellor’s five-year
timetable for cutting borrowing. With government revenues failing to recover,
Osborne quietly slowed down the speed of his cuts, eventually declaring that a
further £35bn of consolidation would be needed in the next parliament. The Bank
of England injected a further £175bn into the economy between October 2011 and
July 2012. In 2012, the government started subsidising bank lending for
mortgages through its “Help to Buy” scheme. The shaky recovery that the easing
of austerity brought about in 2013 made possible the Chancellor’s rhetorical
masterstroke: we are growing faster than any country in Europe. This shows
austerity works!”
3. Was austerity applied fairly or
responsibly?
“Freedom, fairness and responsibility” were the first three words after
the title page in the Coalition’s 2010 manifesto. The forward includes: “Difficult decisions will have to
be taken in the months and years ahead, but we will ensure that fairness is at
the heart of those decisions so that all those most in need are protected”.
I thought I could get to grips with this question by reading end-of-term
reviews of the incumbents, but these were more difficult to find than I
expected. But here are some great
sources that I found:
A. In January,
the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion (CASE) at LSE published a
series of reports and video presentations on the Coalition's Social Policy
Record (here’s the main summary).
I've only had a chance to experience a small portion of this, but from what I've seen, it's fascinating and wonderfully in-depth (unlike so much of the news).
This also helped me to understand the
framework that the Coalition set up for deficit reduction. They chose to focus
on cutting spending rather than increasing taxation (77% vs 23%) and actually
decreased taxes by dropping the top tax rate of 50% and raising the non-taxable
personal allowance from £6,475 to £10,000. They protected pensions, the NHS
and education from cuts (although also didn’t increase their budgets as many
think was necessary), so the axe fell very hard on what was left.
I'd love to pass on more highlights from it, but I’ll stick to only one graph
from the summary document, which shows why I don’t believe the cuts have been
applied fairly or responsibly.
Figure 2 The combined
impact of direct tax and cash transfers was mostly regressive, moving incomes
from poorer household to those that were better off.
Source: De Agostini, et
al (2014)/EUROMOD. Figures show percentage change in household disposable
income by income group due to policy changes, compared with May 2010 system uprated
by CPI.
Other recommended resources are the following:
B. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS). I appreciated both that their research was so focussed and their willingness to point out plans from any party that they thought didn't make
sense.
C. Two more in-depth
articles from the Guardian (Slick and slapdash, U-turning and dogmatic - the legacy of the coalition and Cameron's five-year legacy: has he finished what Thatcher started? , which arguably have a certain bias but I
appreciated for the level of detail.
D. An article from the
Spectator, which comes to similar conclusions (although from a different angle)
to the Guardian articles.
4. The Tories will keep
some promises, but which ones?
This is a bit unfair as it likely applies to all politicians, but the
Coalition's record on its main goals seems pretty poor.
These are the goals from the Coalition's 2010 manifesto, as highlighted
in the CASE summary report mentioned
above.
The incoming Government declared that its most urgent task was to tackle
the country’s debts. Fail
But it also insisted that fairness would lie at the heart of its
decisions “so that those most in need are most protected”. The better-off would
be expected to: “pay more than the poorest, not just in terms of cash, but as a
proportion of income as well”. Fail
Beyond deficit reduction, the Coalition set a further goal of improving
social mobility and creating a society where “…everyone, regardless of
background, has the chance to rise as high as their talents and ambition allow
them”. Fail
Reforms to ‘welfare’, taxation and education were promised, with devolution
of decision-making powers from central to local government and communities. Success (Done but by giving greater responsibilities
to local governments with cut budgets).
Defining its core values as “freedom, fairness and responsibility”, the
Coalition pledged to deliver “radical reforming government, a stronger society,
a smaller state and power and responsibility in the hands of every
citizen”. Success!
Not for the first part on fairness, but the Coalition has definitely succeeded
on being a “radical reforming government” with a “smaller state”.
From
this, I have to wonder what are the true goals of the Tories for the next parliament.
5. Do the Tories care about
you?
I understand that some people
will tend to vote Tory and are likely justified in doing so. This is by no means an exclusive list, but if
you're a public school educated elite, an executive, a small business owner or a
pensioner, then I can see why you're likely to vote Tory.
But will their policies also hurt these groups of supporters?
A. Small business owner or pensioner,
how would a floundering NHS work into your plans?
B. Elite, executive or exporter, are you ready to risk your future on an
EU referendum?
6. This was a Coalition. What would a
true Tory government do?
I don't have the answer for this one, but I wish I did!
As you can probably guess by this point, I'm not going to vote Tory.
This was already the case before this research because of my gut feel that they’re
creating a crueler country and society that I don’t want to support, but now I
logically understand why I consider them dangerous, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment