The (leaked) Labour Manifesto and Fallacy of “How much will it cost?”
The labour manifesto has leaked. This should be sufficient proof that those in the labour party who have thus far claimed their concerns are about Corbyn’s electability, are actually more concerned that he will be elected. In a recent interview with Jacobin Magazine, Matt Zarb-Cousin, former press-officer to Corbyn, spoke of some days where he would receive “eighty to a hundred calls or texts from journalists, mostly with stories that were leaked by people on our own side”. This latest leak is just the cynical culmination of the last two years, a period which at some point will require a “truth and reconciliation” inquiry to ensure the party survives — even if a general election win can temporarily paper over the cracks.
Putting that to one side for the time being, the manifesto itself lays out an ambitious, socialist agenda that addresses inequality, injustice and all that is required for a dignified life. If your response to that is “how much will it cost?”, then you’ve fallen for the “government is a household” analogy. The levers available to the government to raise revenue are many, and public spending is about a distribution of those resources i.e. priorities. The government can raise taxes, borrow cheaply, and print money — if your household can do that, then you probably live at 11 Downing Street or are running some kind of rogue breakaway state (is that you, Ms. Sturgeon?). When a government claims to be revenue constrained and needs to tighten its belt, it is usually cover for an ideologically driven desire to reduce the size of the state, which should be patently obvious when talking about a tory government. This point was aptly (and amusingly) demonstrated recently, when Progress Director Richard Angell was schooled by Economist Daniel Howdon on twitter, after the former claimed labour’s plan to abolish hospital car park charges was a waste of “money”. Despite these rare demonstrations of economic literacy, the cult of the balance sheet still reigns in the press, with Dianne Abbott’s recent memory lapse when attempting to recall the cost of increasing police numbers, generating hysteria in the media (likely exacerbated by committing the crime of being a black woman in public life).
But if the flawed, but compelling analogy that government is like a household still resonates with you, then ask yourself who pays for those services the state can no longer provide? The answer is you pay, but increasingly, you can’t afford to. First, you’ll try to pay from your wages, but we’ve had near ten years of wage stagnation, with any recent rises wiped out by inflation. So your wages aren’t enough — never mind, let’s dip into the rainy day pot. Well you’ve already been doing that, and now household savings ratios are the lowest they’ve been since the 1960s. So you’ve got no savings, what now? Debt, and you’ve definitely been borrowing. Personal debt is now at pre-2008 levels, when the economic system collapsed because of rampant and irresponsible lending. And that’s even before you include student debt, with fees at £9250 and rising, and mortgages, with house prices increasing 31% since 2010.
It should be clear that an urgent response is required to the failures of the market to provide housing, energy, wages, and transport. Our public services need re-invigorating, and those who work in them need remuneration that befits their service. You’ve got a choice at this election: Do you and your household pay for these failures as the tories think you should? Or does the government shoulder that burden? The Labour manifesto should not be viewed as a series of costed pledges, but rather a promise that wherever possible, government will make sure you do not pay for the failures of the free market.
