The IPPR's Condition of Britain: an exchange.
| Position | RESPONSES |
Howling in the wind
Nick Pearce and Graeme Cooke
Our former colleague Howard Reed does not pull any punches in his review of the IPPR report, The Condition of Britain (Reed, 2014). He argues that the book is a 'complete and utter failure in terms of offering an alternative to the Coalition government's neo-Thatcherite small-state model for government' and amounts to 'a colossal betrayal of the British left'. To those of us who know and like Howard, this ill-tempered and sectarian tone jars with his warm and generous personality. But, beyond the rhetoric, he outlines a serious critique of our position. Moreover, given that Howard has built a strong and richly deserved reputation as an economic analyst over a long period, including at IPPR, his perspective is one that demands proper engagement.
To summarise, Howard lodges three main complaints against The Condition of Britain. First, he claims that we adopt the current Coalition government's fiscal strategy; acquiescing to its programme of cuts to public spending and taxation more or less wholesale. Second, he suggests we have learned all the wrong lessons from the Blair-Brown years; rejecting the best and remaining silent about the worst of New Labour's period in office. And third, he points to a series of major policy areas we neglect to address; ranging from wealth taxes and collective bargaining to climate change and the putative Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Overall, Howard's accusation is that our book offers no vision, no radicalism and--worst of all--no alternative.
In response, let us immediately clear away the third objection so we can focus on the main disputes. It is true that The Condition of Britain does not cover every policy challenge facing the country. It was not intended to be a comprehensive prospectus and the report makes that clear early on (see p. 5 'scope of the report'). It is centrally about social policy, covering a substantial canvass: childcare, youth unemployment, welfare, housing, criminal justice and ageing (among others). If the reader is interested in IPPR's analysis and ideas on climate change, globalisation, workplace democracy and much else, they can draw on a voluminous output elsewhere, starting at www.ippr.org.
The issue of scope also relates to one of Howard's core criticisms. The Condition of Britain does not set out an overall fiscal strategy or preferred fiscal path--so it is totally inaccurate to claim that we endorse the government's approach. In fact, since 2010, the IPPR has argued that the path of deficit reduction should be far more sensitive to the strength of the economy than has been the case. We have also argued for progressive taxation (in particular of unearned wealth) to bear a greater burden of budget consolidation relative to spending cuts, while aiming to reduce the ratio of debt to GDP over the medium term (Dolphin and Lent, 2011).
Contrary to Howard's suggestion, the collection of reforms advocated in our book is revenue neutral, with proposals requiring additional resources matched by suggested spending cuts or tax rises. The latter include exactly the kinds of steps--such as increasing capital gains tax and reducing higher rate pension tax relief--that Howard accuses us of neglecting. It is therefore ludicrous to suggest there is no difference between our revenue neutral approach and the kinds of policies required to deliver an additional [pounds sterling]37 billion in fiscal tightening between 2016/17 and 2018/19 implied by the Coalition's...
To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
