The politics of Rachel Reeves spending review looks like this:
Voters are being told that the problems are so great that investment needs to come before the redistribution of the fruits of (future) economic success.
The problem is for the less wealthy, and especially the poor, this has been the implied message of politics for decades; a tale of prosperity deferred.
Many will now dismiss such a message on the basis of previous experience... leaving Labour politically exposed?
There is rather more redistribution in the #comprehensivespendingreview than would appear at first reading. However it has taken the form of #socialtransfersinkind - usually abbreviated to #STIK - rather than cash. #nhs spending has been estimated to have a particularly strong redistributive effect so the concentration of growth in day to day spending on health will have turbocharged this. So quite a strong case can be made - but not clear #labour communications are up to it!
Hmmmm... there's an old (possibly apocryphal) story relating to Gordon Brown; one of his aides was once heard to remark 'the problem with Gordon is he doesn't seem to understand the poor don't have money'....
So, yes I can see that one might make an argument for social transfers in kind, but in the immediate everyday, for most people struggling with their finances this won't really be noticeable....
And funny how 'transfers' to the rich always come in cash, bonuses, tax reliefs etc
For historical and personal reasons I am particularly keen on including #stik in distributional calculations. However I do suspect that the argument has been overdone slightly on this occasion. I also have a feeling that health spending may be rather less redistributive at the margin than overall. This is I fear something of an academic argument since I doubt whether #labour officials can understand the issues let alone communicate them!
yes, I would agree
Emeritus Prof Christopher May
Donald Roy