Letter: Labour's proposals to create more jobs
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Your leading article and economic commentary on Labour's new proposals to tackle unemployment (20 January) discuss at length the problems of a windfall tax on the utilities. The commentary even claims that in no circumstances whatsoever - irrespective of the use to which the revenue is to be put - should a retrospective tax be considered. Yet this surely misses the key point about these proposals.
Unemployment, as you recognise, should be at the top of the economic policy agenda at the moment. Yet the most that we hear from government are leaked reports of heated cabinet debates on what degree of 'Workfare' to introduce, a policy that is hardly likely to bring unemployment down in a hurry, whatever one thinks of its intrinsic merits.
Bolder ideas for bringing down unemployment are so often knocked down by economic 'experts' because the expenditure they imply either adds to the PSBR or requires higher taxes, neither of which is deemed appropriate, given the fragility of the recovery and public finances. We are thus talked into a situation of feeling helpless before the upward march of unemployment.
What Gordon Brown's proposals illustrate is that even for those accepting the straitjacket of not increasing borrowing to get the economy out of recession, there are things that can be done to release resources to tackle unemployment. People may disagree over the precise mechanisms suggested, but surely not with the basic proposition - and not with Mr Brown's ideas for raising revenue by retaining stamp duty on shares and closing tax loopholes.
The reason for the failure of government to act on unemployment is thus brought more sharply into focus as concerning a lack of will rather than a lack of options.
Yours faithfully,
DAN CORRY
Senior Economist
Institute for Public
Policy Research
London, WC2
21 January
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments