On the Today programme this morning, David Cameron defended the coalition's £6bn cuts - but the rationale for the move has shifted since the election.
On the Today programme this morning, David Cameron defended the coalition’s announcement on Monday of £6 billion in spending cuts in 2010-11. But the rationale for the move has shifted since the election.
On Today, David Cameron said:
“The key thing is we promised £6 billion of spending reductions, we have delivered £6 billion of spending reductions, that is good for our economy, it shows us getting to grips with the deficit.”
But in March, a Conservative Party press release was clear that cuts this year would be limited to “cutting waste”:
“The Conservatives have announced that a Conservative Government will stop Labour’s tax rise on jobs by cutting waste…
“A Conservative Government will take immediate action to start cutting Government waste, in order to spend £6 billion less in 2010-11 than Labour’s plans…
“Former Government advisers Sir Peter Gershon and Dr Martin Read, now members of the Conservatives’ Public Sector Productivity Advisory Board, advise that savings of £12 billion across all departmental spending are possible in-year without affecting the quality of front line services.”
On Monday, George Osborne and David Laws announced £6.25 billion of cuts rather than £12 billion. But these include reductions in spending programmes such as scrapping the Child Trust Fund, Future Jobs Fund, and cutting student numbers.
Although the IFS outlines that “the likely reduction in borrowing in 2010-11 is around £5 billion”, the Government’s planned tax cuts are likely to erode this in 2011-12. The coalition agreement said:
“We will increase the personal allowance for income tax to help lower and middle income earners. We will announce in the first Budget a substantial increase in the personal allowance from April 2011, with the benefits focused on those with lower and middle incomes.
“This will be funded with the money that would have been used to pay for the increase in employee National Insurance thresholds proposed by the Conservative Party, as well as revenues from increases in Capital Gains Tax rates for non-business assets as described below.
“The increase in employer National Insurance thresholds proposed by the Conservatives will go ahead in order to stop the planned jobs tax.”
The total cost of this package is likely to be similar to the £5.6 billion cost of the Conservative party’s pre-election National Insurance cuts. This can hardly be called getting to grips with the deficit.
Left Foot Forward doesn't have the backing of big business or billionaires. We rely on the kind and generous support of ordinary people like you.
You can support hard-hitting journalism that holds the right to account, provides a forum for debate among progressives, and covers the stories the rest of the media ignore. Donate today.
23 Responses to “Are the Tories really getting to grips with the deficit?”
Fat Bloke on Tour
Anon E …
There you go again, supposed “Labour” supporter bigging up the Tories at every turn.
Somehow I don’t believe you .
When it comes to who was the better protector of the Falklands, old Sunny Jims wins hands down over Thatch the Snatch.
Thatch’s policies killed more servicemen than TB ever did.
Please review the forces casualty rates to learn the truth.
More servicemen died in the 80’s than the noughties.
When it comes to enemies of the human race the junta couldn’t hold a candle to SH, I would be interested to know if you would argue against that statement. Consequently he had to go.
Having G”W”B involved made it a lot harder, would you have had the same issues if Gore had been in charge.
Regarding defence spending I have issues with MOD procurement, officer feather-bedding (esp private education perks) and British Waste of Space profits / lack of technical ability.
Anon E Mouse
Fat Bloke on Tour – Told you I didn’t vote Labour last time so you may be right – currently I am not a Labour supporter.
I don’t consider the liberation of peaceful peoples in the Falklands, attacked by a fascist regime a reason to attempt to score political points about who did what and when. You are simply incorrect regarding the numbers of troops killed in action under Thatcher/Major and Blair/Brown. trevmax is right – you are wrong and no matter how many red herrings you throw up that is the fact ya numpty.
Finally, irrespective of who I vote for, if they are in the wrong, they are in the wrong and your sort of tribal football team like support (and Mr.Sensible, Shamik Das and Liz McShane included) you display is simply intellectually stupid.
Example: Either tuition fees had “been legislated against to prevent them rising” as Blair suggested or they were not. Blair lied and up went the fees. And Lisbon Treaty etc etc etc.
Yet even when the left are wrong in their actions people on this blog still make excuses for them instead of robustly challenging the Labour leadership and making it clear who runs the show. Because of the tacit support and lame excuses by blogs such as these (and I don’t include Will Straw, Ed Jacobs, Mehdi Hasan and the like in this – they display a modicum of intelligence that is somewhat lacking by other contributors to this blog) we get dishonest inexcusable actions that are excused here.
So when that last useless unelected PM, Gordon Brown, calls a Labour voter a bigot you lot say “It was a private conversation” – an excuse.
When Walter Wolfgang, a lifelong Labour supporter in his eighties, heckles Jack Straw at the Party conference he is arrested under the Terrorism Act – not challenged from the stage, not questioned as to his grievance simply arrested by thugs and removed from the hall. Same with the woman reading the names of the dead at the Cenotaph. Wrong but the blogs excused it.
And smearing David Cameron in the week his disabled son died – by employees actually in Downing Street. Wrong but the blogs excused it. And smearing David Kelly and on and on and on.
So if as a Labour supporter you think it’s ok to excuse the likes of Derek Draper, Charlie Whelan and Liam Byrne I’m afraid I don’t. If something is wrong challenge it – shout to the rooftops and don’t let the likes of Mandelson and Campbell or any of those other truly unpleasant characters hijack the membership.
When the left says it needs to rethink the whole thing from the bottom up they are right but can we please have less hypocrites like John Prescott rewarded by the party – sorry Lord Prescott – and elect a leader who is actually electable. That rules out Ed Miliband – too evasive. Ed Balls – too dishonest. Andy Burnham – too stupid…
I’m going with David Miliband…
Fat Bloke on Tour
Anon E …
Stop moving the goalposts.
Just answer the questions.
Troop casualties — Thatch killed more — Fact.
Falklands — Thatch lost them — Fact.
David Kelly — Media Tart — Fact.
3 BBC reporters can’t be wrong.
As for the rest of your post, Daily Mail laundry list.
Some of your points have merit but they are lost in the blizzard of bile.
Consequently you may have voted Labour in the past but I see you as a New Labour Glory hunter after all the cheap credibility of supporting a sure thing. Consequently you are peripheral to the post election debate on what went right, what went wrong.
However if we have to debate then please get your facts right.
Much work needed on your casualty figures.
Tip — Look at the NI casualties.