In the West Wing episode ‘Game on’, President Jed Bartlet responds to a remark by his Republican opponent about the need for tax cuts with the following words: “There it is. That’s the ten word answer my staff’s been looking for for two weeks … What are the next ten words of your answer? Your taxes are too high? So are mine. Give me the next ten words. How are we going to do it?”
In search of his own ten word answer, Gordon Brown has revived the old, familiar dividing line about “investment v cuts”. On one hand, this is understandable; ten words may even be too many for a successful political slogan. Think for a moment, when did you last read a ten word headline? But it also risks Labour losing the more nuanced debate about future investment in our public services.
The prime minister’s argument about Tory slashes in public spending is not sustainable – almost everyone now believes reductions in spending after the next election will be essential, whichever party is in government. The public’s reaction to the familiar dividing line about Labour investment and Tory cuts has in fact emboldened the Conservatives to speak publicly about reductions in public spending, though they will not say which areas of public expenditure they would cut first.
If Labour is going to retain credibility with the electorate, it needs to find a more sophisticated argument that acknowledges the need to restore the public finances. A better argument for Labour to make in the run up to the general election would, I argue, to be to ask ‘whose cuts would you prefer – Labour’s or the Conservatives’?
And it is an argument Labour can win. Our record on investment is a strong one. The investments made by Labour in our NHS, in education and in neighbourhood policing all benefit those on low and middle incomes who rely on our public services.
Meanwhile, the Tories remain committed to a cut in inheritance tax, which would leave only the 3000 wealthiest estates in the country better off.
Labour has also maintained Britain’s increased spending on aid, so that this is now one of the few areas the Tories have promised not to cut, though as their international development green paper reveals, they would cut off funding to some of the poorest countries, such as Vietnam.
Trying to make the debate about “investment v cuts” therefore not only risks damaging Labour’s credibility with the electorate, it obscures our strong track record on investing in public services. Defending Labour’s record on investment while articulating a responsible path for the future will take more than ten words, but it will be worth it.