Labour's strategy is stuck in the past
Peter Hoskin 9:01am
As numerous Labour MPs have been saying recently, Brown needs to start doing something different if Labour are to reverse the Tories' momentum in the the polls. But, interviewed in the latest New Statesman, Alistair Darling indicates that Labour High Command are happy to stick by the old, tried-and-tested methods which are no longer getting them anywhere:
Darling believes that the battle lines at the election will be clear: a simple choice between Labour investment versus Tory cuts."The Tories seem to be going back to where they were in the early 1980s - saying the government's role is pretty limited. They have set themselves significant cuts in public spending. I think that's incredibly short-sighted."
From Labour's perspective, there are two main problems with this. First - and as the IFS highlighted yesterday - any post-recession government is going to have to rein in spending in order to pay for Brown's debt addiction. Indeed, Labour have themselves pencilled in £37 billion worth of "cuts" for between 2011 and 2014, and the Tories haven't committed to much more beyond this. And, second, the politics of a recession mean that "belt-tightening" messages are likely to have greater traction. To ignore that is to swim against the political tide.
Previous
RW
January 29th, 2009 9:37am Report this commentOld but still pertinent cliche about the definition of madness: keep repeating the same actions in the absolute conviction that this time the outcome will be different.
Rachel
January 29th, 2009 10:14am Report this commentProof, if ever proof were needed, that Labour simply don't live in the real world.
golfwidow
January 29th, 2009 10:21am Report this commentBrown's become a total embarrassment to the country. This cannot be allowed to continue.
Arthur
January 29th, 2009 10:31am Report this commentLabour politicians don't understand people who pay taxes, only people who spend them. They could never understand that real people are tightening their belts to get through the next year, so can't see any necessity to do it with the public purse.
TrevorsDen
January 29th, 2009 11:36am Report this commentDarling - if he believes his own words - is blind, not merely short sighted.
First the £37 billion cuts his own Department have admitted to give the lie to his words. Indeed his words are just exposing a political propaganda line, not the truth.
But the reality is that Govts role IS limited. Just look where all the big government has got us today. How can the real wealth creating debt repaying economy survive, recover, if the govt squeezes the blood from it?
The 'growth' we have had in the Labour years has been a chimera, if not why is it we are the most indebted nation in the history of the planet? Attention needs to be focussed on how to make room for real enterprise, real growth founded on rock not sand.
David
January 29th, 2009 12:07pm Report this commentMuch of the growth since the nineties was indeed a credit-fueled consumer boom and property bubble, but the growing debt is largely to do with bail out and stimulus packages to combat the effects of the global banking collapse, not 'big government'. Belt tightening now would reduce demand further - a disaster for the economy.
The whole world is in recession, and the UK's tax burden and public sector are completely in line with comparable EU and OECD countries.
Whatever happens, surely spending on education and infrastructure are vital to the nation's future?
Rhoda Klapp
January 29th, 2009 12:23pm Report this commentThe government's correct role in recovery is to get out of the way. And that means tearing up regulations. Fat chance.
Diswiss
January 29th, 2009 12:49pm Report this commentThe real tragedy is we can't
kick them out for causing such d
damage and continuing to do so.
golfwidow-you're right.I feel embarrassed for the whole country for holding the G20
summit in UK. I really hope Obama doesn't come.
That would be priceless.
turns it down.
Back to top