How Labour can credibly pledge to outspend the Tories

While restricting current spending, the party should promise to invest the proceeds of growth into future-facing areas like skills, childcare and infrastructure.

Labour must make a fundamental choice; whether to broadly accept George Osborne’s fiscal plans or commit to spending more. Until that decision is made, the question of whether Labour is tacking to the left or hugging tight to the coalition will remain unanswered: 'follow the money', to use the old Watergate maxim.

A Fabian Society commission has spent the last year examining this choice by considering the impact of rolling forward the chancellor’s current plans, as well as asking how much more it might be possible for a future government to spend and what that money might do.

The inquiry concluded that the coalition’s existing plans for 2016 and 2017 would translate into an almost unthinkable decline in public provision. Councils would be able to deliver little more than their statutory social care and refuse collection duties. Some government departments would end up with less than half the budgets they started with in 2010. And a further round of deep social security cuts would be needed, with George Osborne’s proposal to remove benefits from young people only the start.

A future government should do everything it can to avoid making these choices, but it must also remain totally committed to deficit reduction, for both economic and political reasons. That leaves a tight-rope to walk, between fiscal denial and spending cuts which will cause huge harm. Exactly how much more money a future government will be able to spend will depend on how well the economy is doing, because rising GDP feeds through into extra tax revenue. But the Fabian commission concluded that any party wishing to offer a convincing alternative to the coalition should aim to spend £20bn more in 2017 than the government now intends.

This would be enough extra money to avoid the worst of the pain scheduled for after the next election. But an incoming government would still need to make some hard decisions, which could prove very uncomfortable for Labour activists. For example, it would probably be possible to avoid big new cuts, but most departments would see spending frozen or increased by inflation only. The government would also need to find money from social security, so some entitlements would need to be cut unless economic recovery creates unexpected savings. There will almost certainly need to be a debate about 'least bad' benefit cuts, with fresh attention to some of the more marginal pensioner benefits.

Labour won’t win the argument, however, if the fiscal debate is just about spending 'more' or 'less'. The left also needs to set out the positive case for spending, by arguing that the composition of public expenditure must change. Under the coalition, the spending priorities have been healthcare and pensions. Both are very important, but without enough money to go round, the result has been deep cuts to the sort of future-facing spending which brings long term prosperity: skills, childcare, infrastructure, innovation and job creation.

The Fabian commission proposes that in 2016 and 2017, spending on these areas should receive the same special protection as the NHS budget does today. It also argues for a permanent increase to capital spending. With these reforms a future government could show that higher expenditure is the only way to spend on the future without sacrificing the vulnerable, old and sick of today.

Labour will no doubt worry about the political attacks it will face if it is to promise more spending. And it is true that some of the extra money would probably need to come from tax rises, although these can be limited to high income groups. For example the Fabian commission heard that many billions could be saved through reform of pension tax relief, so that rich workers only receive the same public subsidy for each pound they save as everyone else.

But the improving economic outlook also offers some cover for the proponents of higher spending, since projections for tax revenue will soon be revised upwards. The coalition seems likely to commit the money to accelerating deficit reduction or pre-election tax cuts. Labour can promise an alternative; to recycle the 'proceeds of growth' into productive, pro-growth public expenditure. A promise to spend more after 2015 need not be seen just as a shift to the left. It is also a commitment to Britain’s long-term future.

2030 Vision: The final report of the Fabian Society Commission on Future Spending Choices is published today. Read it on the Fabian Society's website here 

Ed Miliband and Ed Balls at the Labour conference in Brighton last month. Photograph: Getty Images.

Andrew Harrop is general secretary of the Fabian Society.

Photo: ASA
Show Hide image

Harmful gender stereotypes in ads have real impact – so we're challenging them

The ASA must make sure future generations don't recoil at our commercials.

July’s been quite the month for gender in the news. From Jodie Whittaker’s casting in Doctor Who, to trains “so simple even women can drive them”, to how much the Beeb pays its female talent, gender issues have dominated. 

You might think it was an appropriate time for the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) to launch our own contribution to the debate, Depictions, Perceptions and Harm: a report on gender stereotypes in advertising, the result of more than a year’s careful scrutiny of the evidence base.

Our report makes the case that, while most ads (and the businesses behind them) are getting it right when it comes to avoiding damaging gender stereotypes, the evidence suggests that some could do with reigning it in a little. Specifically, it argues that some ads can contribute to real world harms in the way they portray gender roles and characteristics.

We’re not talking here about ads that show a woman doing the cleaning or a man the DIY. It would be most odd if advertisers couldn’t depict a woman doing the family shop or a man mowing the lawn. Ads cannot be divorced from reality.

What we’re talking about is ads that go significantly further by, for example, suggesting through their content and context that it’s a mum’s sole duty to tidy up after her family, who’ve just trashed the house. Or that an activity or career is inappropriate for a girl because it’s the preserve of men. Or that boys are not “proper” boys if they’re not strong and stoical. Or that men are hopeless at simple parental or household tasks because they’re, well...men.

Advertising is only a small contributor to gender stereotyping, but a contributor it is. And there’s ever greater recognition of the harms that can result from gender stereotyping. Put simply, gender stereotypes can lead us to have a narrower sense of ourselves – how we can behave, who we can be, the opportunities we can take, the decisions we can make. And they can lead other people to have a narrower sense of us too. 

That can affect individuals, whatever their gender. It can affect the economy: we have a shortage of engineers in this country, in part, says the UK’s National Academy of Engineering, because many women don’t see it as a career for them. And it can affect our society as a whole.

Many businesses get this already. A few weeks ago, UN Women and Unilever announced the global launch of Unstereotype Alliance, with some of the world’s biggest companies, including Proctor & Gamble, Mars, Diageo, Facebook and Google signing up. Advertising agencies like JWT and UM have very recently published their own research, further shining the spotlight on gender stereotyping in advertising. 

At the ASA, we see our UK work as a complement to an increasingly global response to the issue. And we’re doing it with broad support from the UK advertising industry: the Committees of Advertising Practice (CAP) – the industry bodies which author the UK Advertising Codes that we administer – have been very closely involved in our work and will now flesh out the standards we need to help advertisers stay on the right side of the line.

Needless to say, our report has attracted a fair amount of comment. And commentators have made some interesting and important arguments. Take my “ads cannot be divorced from reality” point above. Clearly we – the UK advertising regulator - must take into account the way things are, but what should we do if, for example, an ad is reflecting a part of society as it is now, but that part is not fair and equal? 

The ad might simply be mirroring the way things are, but at a time when many people in our society, including through public policy and equality laws, are trying to mould it into something different. If we reign in the more extreme examples, are we being social engineers? Or are we simply taking a small step in redressing the imbalance in a society where the drip, drip, drip of gender stereotyping over many years has, itself, been social engineering. And social engineering which, ironically, has left us with too few engineers.

Read more: Why new rules on gender stereotyping in ads benefit men, too

The report gave news outlets a chance to run plenty of well-known ads from yesteryear. Fairy Liquid, Shake 'n' Vac and some real “even a woman can open it”-type horrors from decades ago. For some, that was an opportunity to make the point that ads really were sexist back then, but everything’s fine on the gender stereotyping front today. That argument shows a real lack of imagination. 

History has not stopped. If we’re looking back at ads of 50 years ago and marvelling at how we thought they were OK back then, despite knowing they were products of their time, won’t our children and grandchildren be doing exactly the same thing in 50 years’ time? What “norms” now will seem antiquated and unpleasant in the future? We think the evidence points to some portrayals of gender roles and characteristics being precisely such norms, excused by some today on the basis that that’s just the way it is.

Our report signals that change is coming. CAP will now work on the standards so we can pin down the rules and official guidance. We don’t want to catch advertisers out, so we and CAP will work hard to provide as much advice and training as we can, so they can get their ads right in the first place. And from next year, we at the ASA will make sure those standards are followed, taking care that our regulation is balanced and wholly respectful of the public’s desire to continue to see creative ads that are relevant, entertaining and informative. 

You won’t see a sea-change in the ads that appear, but we hope to smooth some of the rougher edges. This is a small but important step in making sure modern society is better represented in ads.

Guy Parker is CEO of the ASA