Andrew Rawnsley suggested in The Observer yesterday that Labour could be a radical government despite the fact that it has no money to spend.

His suggestion was that in the last Labour government policies on the minimum wage and civil partnerships were radical but nearly costless, at least to the government. He also highlighted previous administrations and their measures to reform abortion and equalities laws. None of this can be disputed. But, his assumptions really do not stack.

The parliaments of 1967 and 1974 were radical because that was Labour’s inclination at the time. We knew that these that these things were desired. That’s why most happened early in parliaments. We have heard nothing like that this time.

And important as these things undoubtedly are, they took place in most case against backgrounds where essential services were being supplied. In other words, these things could be done precisely because there was an atmosphere where this was possible because very basic things, like preventing people dying because of a lack of healthcare, were not an issue.

Rawnsley ignored that. It was a big oversight.

So too was his assumption that there is no money available a big one to make. In fact, it’s just not true. I have shown that in the Taxing Wealth Report. The lack of money is not necessary. It is by choice. And however it is looked at, it is not a radical choice.

So, Rawnsley is wrong for two reasons, although the roots of both are similar. The reality is that being radical requires a predisposition to be so, whether on social policy or spending, with the latter being intimately related to the former by the ability of tax to redistribute income and wealth. There is no indication that the current Labour Party has any predisposition to be radical, at all. In that case, to presume it might be is an act of faith stretching credibility beyond tolerable limits.