The absence of honesty in UK election will undermine democracy itself
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
A general election is the most important political event within a democracy. A free and fair election delivers a government accepted by the electorate as legitimate. It allows the voters to get rid of a government that has lost their confidence, without violence, thereby securing the blessing of a peaceful and orderly society. These are all huge benefits of democracy.
In all these respects, the British general election is delivering what we should want. Having watched Donald Trump try to overturn the results of the last presidential election in the US, we should not take such blessings for granted. But a democratic election should deliver far more than this, especially for a country in the UK’s current plight: it should ignite a debate about the options confronting the country. Democracy should deliver more than cynical public relations exercises. By these standards, this election is a flop.
The difficulty is clear: business as usual is just not going to work. The UK confronts fundamental challenges. How can it reignite growth? How is it going to handle the fiscal pressures of an ageing society with public services already under stress? How is it going to raise both public and private investment and how is it going to generate the savings needed to fund it? How is it going to deliver the green transition? How is it going to fund higher spending on defence? What sort of tax system does it need to finance public spending, fairly and efficiently?
If things were going well, we would not need to address such questions. But they are not. So, we have to do so.
The IMF’s latest assessment of the economy highlights two simple and depressing facts. First, it notes, “the drop in labour productivity growth, the key driver of living standards — from around 2 per cent [before the global financial crisis] to around ½ per cent thereafter — has been noticeably bigger than in other advanced economies.” Put bluntly, the UK economy has pretty well gone “ex-growth”.
Second, the fiscal forecasts on which the election focuses are a fantasy or, as it says in IMF-speak, “Absent a major boost to potential growth, assuredly stabilising debt in the medium-term will likely involve some tough choices.” Yes: there will need to be some combination of higher taxes, user charges and cuts in planned spending to stabilise public debt in the medium term. How are these challenges, economic and political, to be met? What might happen to the country if the next government, too, fails to address them?
The Labour party is the overwhelming favourite to win power in the election. So, if the polls are right, it will soon have to address these issues. Its manifesto is also not a terrible document. It is right, for example, to stress the need for stability and for reform of planning. The Conservatives failed on the latter and have made a mockery of the former. It would be a good thing if a Labour government remedied such failings.
Yet it would also not begin to be enough. To understand why, one only needs to read the excellent “initial response” by the Institute for Fiscal Studies on the Labour manifesto. It concludes that, despite recognising both the dire state of the public services and the fiscal squeeze, Labour has no credible plans for addressing either.
It is worth quoting this devastating judgment: “The public service spending increases promised in the ‘costings’ table are tiny, going on trivial. The tax rises, beyond the inevitable reduced tax avoidance, even more trivial. The biggest commitment, to the much vaunted ‘green prosperity plan’, comes in at no more than £5bn a year, funded in part by borrowing and in part by “a windfall tax on the oil and gas giants”.
“Beyond that, almost nothing in the way of definite promises on spending despite Labour diagnosing deep-seated problems across child poverty, homelessness, higher education funding, adult social care, local government finances, pensions and much more besides. Definite promises though not to do things. Not to have debt rising at the end of the forecast. Not to increase tax on working people. Not to increase rates of income tax, National Insurance, VAT or corporation tax.”
This is the politics of evasion. Behind it is a theory of democratic politics: never recognise the truth. As a way to win elections, this might make sense. But, as an approach to government, it is a clear danger, since it prepares nobody for what needs to be done. As a way to treat democracy itself, it is even worse. By treating the voters as mere children, it can only guarantee ever-rising cynicism about our politics. If we cannot admit to voters the harsh realities we face, they will increasingly distrust politicians and so our democracy itself.
Follow Martin Wolf with myFT and on Twitter
Letter in response to this column:
UK parties stick to Alice in Wonderland banalities / From Chris Mahony, London N16, UK
Comments