The IFS has spoken. The think tank that some (in the Tory press, I note) say is the most respect independent think tank on Britain’s finances say the UK’s political parties have not been honest about the cuts needed to rebalance the UK economy.
Well, let’s unpack that for a moment. First, there’s no such thing as independence. The IFS is financed to promote conventional economic thinking on the UK economy. That’s a particular, and extremely normative view of our reality appropriately called neoliberal economics that prescribes certain outcomes irrespective of circumstance. So, for example, neoliberal economics assumes government is bad and the private sector is good, so it prescribes cuts. And neoliberal economics assumes tax is harmful to private income maximisation — which is a very narrow definition of well being - and as a result automatically rules out the use of tax increases as a mechanism for rebalancing the government’s finances.
Second, the IFS rejects the Lib Dem’s view that just £4 billion can be collected from tackling tax avoidance because, it says, the wealthiest think that such measures will “be unfair”. That’s a wholly subjective and normative judgement on its part. One that ignores the fact that the majority will think such measures are very fair, and which shows it is contemptuous of the majority can that its measure of voting is weighted by wealth.
I could go on, but already it is clear that what the IFS has said is the wholly subjective opinion of a think tank whose existence if dependent upon the premise that shrinking the state is a necessary condition for well being — although there is ample evidence that the political parties are not saying this for the precise reason that they know this is directly contrary to the opinion of the electorate — as whoever has or shares power after the election will find.
In which case let’s accept the IFS position as opinion they honestly hold but as having no more, or less, worth than that. And that because it is inherently biased it can be rejected for that reason, openly, honestly and appropriately precisely because a different bias — to which I subscribe - says they are prescribing the wrong solution (cuts in spending) to the wrong problem (the right one being the collapse in government income) to which there is a viable, valid and deliverable solution — which is to spend now as Keynes would demand and increase taxes later.
And let’s hear no more of the IFS being up on some pedestal to which it has no claim.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“The think tank that some (in the Tory press, I note) say is the most respect independent think tank on Britain’s finances”
Not just the “Tory press”, but the Guardian leader column yesterday prefaced the IFS with the adjective “independent”.
Anyway, certainly far more independent than TR LLP, which I understand is financed by trade unions.
By the way, in the interests of transparency which you always bang on about, can we please see financial statements for TR LLP? Also, a list of financial backers please? I’m surprised you haven’t dislcosed this already.
@Peter
Accounts on line at Companies House
There are no funders
I provide services to:
The TUC
Tax Justice Network
PCS
Task Force on Financial Integrity and Economic Development
Christian Aid
Action Aid
The BBC
Channel 4
Oxfam
Private clients
A range of other smaller organisations, mainly for journalism
It WAS useful that they highlighted the lack of attention to real economic plans.
Of course what this demonstrates is that the media has failed to question on this, as well as on other issues of high public concern, instead lazily accepting the agreed agenda of the 3 biggest parties – all pro EU/big business.
What IFS has got is media savvy, being run by ex Independent journalist Chote, so IFS make it nice and easy for the media.
(The BBC also called it independent).
But your point about IFS only promoting a conventional, neoliberal (already failed for people) economic view is right
Excellent piece Richard. The IFS has consistently pushed the ‘cuts’ agenda as the answer to filling the ‘black hole in the budget’. The only alternative they appear to argue is raising VAT—and of curse everybody recoils in horror. And with the Greek crisis getting out of hand, expect them to speak of the increased threat of international financial markets pushing up borrowing costs. There is some truth in these arguments, of course, but they come with a lot of (cleverly masked) ideological spin!