|
|
|
|
"Tory" and "cuts" - Labour attempt to set the agenda
|
|
Previously I have mentioned the persistent disingenuity of Blair and the Labour Party over so called "Tory cuts" which they keep banging on about. Well this week Labour decided, after being put on the back foot so much, that they were going to try and shape the agenda by releasing a poster that would link the words "Tory" and "cut" back into peoples' minds. This was one of the campaigning points back in 1997, that the Tories had cut the funding from public services. Largely this is true for the early 1990s. It was painful for a lot of people but it was totally necessary in order to get the UK economy moving back on track after the currency debacle, interest rates problems and rapid inflationary pressure. As a result of those cuts the Labour Party inherited a golden economic legacy from a party which at the time was imploding. Having said this, it was an excellent example of media management by the Labour Party that they so successfully created a myth around the Tory Party about what they did and stood for. So much so in fact that many of us receded into the shadows and dared not admit we were Tories for fear of chastisement as evil bigoted bastards that only want to make our rich selves richer. Of course, such a description is utter rubbish, but the Labour Party managed to create it all the same. The definition was made very clear, a Tory believed in cutting public services at the expense of the poor whilst rewarding the rich. After 18 years of Tory Government it's easy to see why the media let itself be manipulated into creating such a myth. It was time for a change, personally, I think it's time for a change again, but that remains to be seen. However I digress slightly, my point is that Labour successfully linked the word "cut" with "Tory" in 1997, and in 2005 they are trying to do it again with a new poster (yes another one).
During last week Labour released a poster which stated that the Tories would "cut" £35 billion from the public services budget. Now that sounds pretty fucking radical. £35 billion is a lot of money to be removing from a budget in one go doesn't it? But wait, it's not being removed from the budget in one go at all. In fact, in some sense it's not being removed from a budget at all because the money isn’t even there yet. When you strip away the spin from Labour's poster what you actually find is that the £35 billion is the difference between what Labour and the Tories would be spending in 2011-12 should they come to and remain in power from this year onwards. They're not even real figures; they’re just projections based on a set of assumptions about the economies performance over the next 7 years all things being equal. They do not factor in potential disasters, wars, global economy effects etc. The figures are, in themselves meaningless in that sense because they will obviously change anyway according to circumstance. However there is also something more important at play here. The actual figures of each party's projections to which the difference is calculated are massively higher than today's figures. In the case of the Labour Party’s total figure for 2011-12 it is based upon a 5% increase of the budget each year. In the case of the Tories it is based upon a 4% increase. There lies the true difference between the two parties for all to see. It is not some scare tactic figure of £35 billion that is being used by Labour because it holds the intelligence of the electorate in contempt, it's a 1% difference in an increase rate that are both over double the current inflation rate. To call that a cut would be intellectually bankrupt.
|
|
|
|
|
