New Labour is preparing the ground for tax rises in Britain for the state health system.
In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx said that under socialism out of the total social product "that which is intended for the common satisfaction of needs, such as schools, health services, etc" should be deducted before the product is divided among individuals. He noted in 1875 that "From the outset this part grows considerably in comparison with present-day society and it grows in proportion as the new society develops." http://www.guardian.co.uk/budget2002/story/0,11219,608714,00.html >Spending on health as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) has >been rising under Labour, and will be 7.6% of GDP by 2004. > >However, the IFS and the health thinktank, the King's Fund, said the >Treasury was basing its calculations on what the rest of the European >Union was spending two years ago and that the average was rising all the time. > >The King's Fund said that excluding Britain, the rest of the European >Union was spending an average of 9% of GDP in 1997. > >Once the European figures were adjusted to take account of the different >sizes of countries, the average for the EU 14 was probably 9.7% - leaving >a gap that would cost well over £20bn to close. This debate has become possible because of a qualitative shift in the British two party system as a result of the second massive Conservative Party electoral defeat. The Conservatives have just announced that health and education will become a priority over tax cuts. Their previous position had crippled the freedom of manoeuvre of New Labour for years. The Conservative Party is now energetically exploring the European continental insurance based systems, set up the christian democrats to meet the social democratic challenge some hundred years ago. Interestingly Marx also identifies "reserve or insurance funds against accidents, ... etc" in the Critique as a necessary deduction from the total social product. New Labour is therefore aiming to finesse the debate: all parties are saying there must be a rise in the proportion of the GDP that goes to health. The Conservatives are looking to insurance systems. Blair and Brown are signalling general taxation. And there is a debate within the Labour Party which they have deliberately advertised, about whether the tax should be hypothecated, or whether it should be the "national insurance" contribution (which is really a form of tax) which should rise. All this to defuse and disempower the ability of the Conservative Party to mount a coherent major counter-attack on any one point, and to continue hegemonic domination of the spectrum of political ideas in Britain. Brown and Blair's timing has been aided by the publication of the allegedly independent Wanless report which argues that general taxation is more efficient than private insurance systems for raising money for health. This is a turning point in the political economy of the UK. Note, and I do not intend this to be confrontational to anyone, how issues of capitalist, socialist, and even communistic (to each according to his need) principles intermingle in this story of sordid dedicated political opportunism. Chris Burford London
