Martin Kettle is right to describe as “irresponsible” Labour’s manifesto commitment not to raise any of the main revenue-raising taxes (Rachel Reeves’s budget has inflamed, not calmed, Britain’s febrile mood, 27 November). This was like sending an army into battle with its most effective weapons removed. It was also quite unnecessary, as Labour was going to win anyway because people just wanted the Tories out.
It would have been possible for Labour to say that it had no desire or intention to raise taxes while also saying that it all depended on the economic circumstances in which it found itself. That would have been the sensible position and would have removed the straitjacket that the government is now in.
But this also raises wider questions about manifestos. They should be seen as a broad prospectus, not a binding contract. It is not just that nobody reads them, but that it is impossible to know if someone voted for a party because of something in its manifesto or despite something in its manifesto. All elections produce is a mandate to rule, and ruling means responding to changing circumstances and challenges.
Implementing a bad policy simply because it was in the manifesto is clearly silly. That is why the lazy language about U-turns is also silly. Replacing a bad policy with a better one is what good government is all about. It should be welcomed, not criticised.
Tony Wright
Labour MP for Cannock Chase, 1992-2010
