Whenever Labour wants to complain about not increasing public spending (or investment as Brown now describes filling potholes in road - that’s not maintenance any more!) I want you to remember this key passage from Bliar’s 1997 manifesto:
The myth that the solution to every problem is increased spending has been comprehensively dispelled under the Conservatives. Spending has risen. But more spending has brought neither greater fairness nor less poverty. Quite the reverse - our society is more divided than it has been for generations. The level of public spending is no longer the best measure of the effectiveness of government action in the public interest. It is what money is actually spent on that counts more than how much money is spent.
The national debt has doubled under John Major. The public finances remain weak. A new Labour government will give immediate high priority to seeing how public money can be better used.
In 1997, the argument had been won. Public spending is not the answer to decent public services. Eight years later we are still fighting to implement this won argument. Eight years on Bliar has wasted as much money as Major and then some, and continued to achieve the opposite of value for money.
Just like everyone else in the country I would like to have more money. I would also, though, like to stop hearing BBC journalists claiming that a reduction in the rate of increase in public spending is somehow prudent. Brown has long stopped deserving the monicker.
December 11th, 2005 at 4:55 pm
Congratulations to the labour spin machine: somehow they have managed to convince the media that Gordon Brown will be ‘tightening the public finance purse strings’ over the next few years. As Gav said, he will be doing nothing of the sort. Public spending will still be going up, but at a lesser rate. All the appallingly wasteful increases will still remain.
Equally, labour accuse the conservtives of ‘massive spening cuts’ when all Cameron has said is that he will not increase spending as much as Brown. This is, quite simply, a lie. Since when does the ‘Brown spending level’ act as our zero baseline? Surely, even if this were the case, it would mean that Brown would be guilty of ‘massive spending increases’?
December 11th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
The Conservatives also claim to have given Labour ‘the best set of books….’, whereas this Blair quote shows the truth of the matter. The National Debt was much higher under the Conservatives as a percentage of GDP. Labour have actually managed to reduce our National Debt, mildly redistribute and drastically improve public services despite levels of spending much less than our EU rivals. France and Germany, for instance spend 12% and 14% of GDP respectively on health compared to our 9% target by 2008. It was 6% in 1997. (The US spend nearer 15%).
Our public spending and taxation is low by international comparisons, tax should be increased not reduced if we want better public services. Of course efficiency can always be improved, but we are actually getting reasonable value for money in comparision with other countries.
December 11th, 2005 at 6:01 pm
Entered website address incorrectly, so here it is.
December 11th, 2005 at 7:22 pm
What you describe is Labour’s increases in spending during a period of economic growth. Spending has increased at a rate greater than the quality of public services (will the NHS be 33% more effective in 2008 than it was in 1997?). This would be reasonable during an economic down-turn when there may be a need for a national debt growth (as was the case in 1992) but during periods of unprecedented economic growth (that started before 1997) it makes sense only to use the growth in the economy to make improvements in public service spending.
To do otherwise is to risk bankrupting the treasury when (not if) the economy does weaken - as is happening now.
That ‘investment’ in the public services was significantly lower in the 1980’s is not questioned and yet there has not been a commiserate growth in quality of public services since Major and Blair started pouring our taxes into them (at Blair’s admission in 1997 as per the above).
Comparing the UK with European countries is to compare a previously-modern economy with the old-world’s economies. And comparisons with the US are entirely irrelevant - they don’t have a publicly funded health service.
And lower taxes have been proven to increase the treasury’s tax take - that this is continually questioned by Labour, the Lib Dems and the BBC is quite, quite beyond comprehension - it’s at odds with logic.
December 11th, 2005 at 9:17 pm
“And lower taxes have been proven to increase the treasury’s tax take”
To a certain limit. Obviously a cut to a zero percent rate would yield no revenues!
On a more serious point, Neil is correct that France, Germany and the US spend more on healthcare. What he fails to note is that crude percentages of GDP don’t actually tell us much (GDP per capita would be a more instructive measure).
More importantly they all have very different healthcare models from the UK. The US uses a private insurance model, while Germany and France favour social insurance and regime of patient choice. They all offer higher chances of survival than the NHS model.
Chances of dying from…
…breast cancer 46% UK, 25% US
… cancer of the prostate 57% UK, 19% US
… cancer of the colon 40% survive for five years after diagnosis, while in the US 60% do.
Increased spending hasn’t increased survival chances in the the UK. The chances of being diagnosed have not increased. This is because the increased investment has been used to meet centrally set targets. An obsession with reducing overall waiting times for treatment had led to an emphasis on treating simple complaints at the expense of the more difficult. Waiting times for treatment are subject to targets, and therefore fall, while waiting times for diagnosis are not dtargete and have therefore surged.
The centrally controlled model is what’s at fault.
December 11th, 2005 at 9:27 pm
…continued
The problem Labour has is that while they largely accepted the Thatcher economic reforms, they remain crude interventionists in their social policy. They beat rtaher than admit that the structures of government themselves mught be distorting results, they are reduced to setting more targets and pouring money in, in the hope that will make up for the structural deficiencies.
December 12th, 2005 at 11:37 am
I agree with James Hellyer, New Labour has made noises about realising that simply throwing money at a problem will not solve it. Yet that is exactly what they end up doing anyway! They have spent an unprecedented amount on the NHS, yet because of the structural problems only 2.4% gets to where it is needed so patients are denied operations.
December 12th, 2005 at 4:08 pm
Quite right Alec, James and Chris!