Liberal Democrats MPs really will say anything to get elected.
Liberal Democrats MPs really will say anything to get elected
With the General Election looming, many Liberal Democrat MPs are understandably trying to distance themselves from the toxic coalition in the hope that it may help them hold on to their parliamentary seat next May.
In fact, it looks like some may be willing to say anything to disassociate themselves from Cameron and Osborne, including flatly contradicting things they’ve said in the very recent past.
Cue David Laws, Liberal Democrat MP for Yeovil and former deputy to chancellor George Osborne.
According to David Laws, speaking today, the chancellor’s spending plans are a ‘political suicide note’. As Laws put it:
“This will be seen to be a very extreme and very right-wing suicide note because all those people who care about the education service, about the police, about the armed forces … will see that the plans they have put forward are hugely damaging and dangerous.”
We couldn’t agree more.
Yet this flatly contradicts words which came out of the mouth of the very same David Laws a mere two years ago.
In a 2012 interview with the Telegraph, Laws boldly outflanked the Tories on the right by arguing that the share of the economy accounted for by the public sector ought to be cut back to 35 per cent.
Public sector spending has hovered at around 40 per cent for decades, but jumped to 49 per cent in 2010-11 on the back of a rise in welfare outgoings triggered by the global financial crisis.
But for Laws, speaking in 2012, this was unacceptable; he wanted further swingeing cuts more drastic even than those planned by George Osborne. As Laws mused:
“The implication of the state spending 40 per cent of national income is that there is likely to be too much resource misallocation and too much waste and inefficiency.”
So why the sudden change of heart?
We would certainly never dream of suggesting that Liberal Democrats MPs will say anything to get elected.
James Bloodworth is the editor of Left Foot Forward. Follow him on Twitter
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
42 Responses to “2012: MORE CUTS. 2014: FEWER CUTS. Will the real David Laws please stand up?”
robertcp
Does that mean you agree or disagree?
Peter Martin
We all have our own opinions on the ideal size of government. David Laws has suggested a figure of 35%. I, and I suspect most Labour supporters, would favour a slightly higher figure, 40-45% maybe, but very few of us would favour 100%. We’d all be in slight disagreement and so 35% is a perfectly sensible figure to propose from someone who may have a political stance to the right of our own.
The difficulty is separating this argument from arguments on the deficit. There is no reason to suppose that the deficit would be much different if Government were only 35% of the economy. Yes, spending would be less but taxes would also have to be less, to the penny, to allow citizens the extra spending power to make up the difference, to keep the economy moving and to prevent the economy falling into recession.
Peter Martin
“the need to manage the debt without paying extortionate interest.”
The base interest rate is chosen by government. Its now close to zero because government, or its supposedly ‘independent’ central bank, wants it to be close to zero. If it wanted 10% it would have 10% or whatever figure it likes.
Government controls the money supply.Unlike you or I it can never be refused a loan. It can never go bankrupt. It can never default. It can never run out of money. It has only two considerations. If it issues too much money (and/or taxes too little) it will create too much inflation. If it issues too little (and/or taxes too much) we’ll have recession and high levels of unemployment.
Guest
No, tax will need generally to be higher. Without being able to spend properly on collection mechanisms, and without the power to collect tax from the rich, the first things to ditch for your “lower spend” advocates…
Leon Wolfeson
I mean you told a joke. On second thoughts, a bad one.