Matching Labour's spending plans

Plenty of tribal abuse for George Osborne in yesterday's Guardian from his article called Labour's reality deficit. One argument often used against him on economic policy was that the Conservatives pledged to match Labour's spending plans up until 2008 - the implication being that the Tories were just as complicit in the economic meltdown as Labour. 

But if you look back to Michael Howard's election campaign of 2005, the Conservatives were quite explicit about cutting public spending, albeit by a paltry £2 billion at that time - although Howard Flight and Oliver Letwin appeared to have other ideas. He also committed the party to formally managing immigration in an attempt to engender integration after the years of open-door immigration as well as addressing the widening democratic deficit so apparent across the EU and its institutions. Precisely the issues that have become most problematic for Labour.

And the result? A massive outcry from the left that the 'same old tories' were intent on dismantling the state for ideological reasons (sound familiar?) or are 'institutionally racist' to talk about immigration (remember Gordon Brown's 'bigot-gate' moment?) or are just a bunch of swivel-eyed xenophobic bigots, obsessed by Europe. Although it seems the first unintended consequence of the Lisbon treaty is now going to cost British women around £35bn in additional motor insurance.

Michael Howard lost the election and the easiest way to neutralise the issue was then to accept Labour's spending plans - just as Gordon Brown had accepted Conservative spending plans going into the 1997 election before embarking on a spending spree that our children will still be paying for - through off-balance sheet PFI costs - in thirty years time. What will be interesting to see, is what Labour commits itself to in the next parliament for reducing the other half of that record deficit it racked up whilst in office. It seems that Labour did indeed find a very successful way of binding the hands of its successors.  

The Coalition must tell the truth

Interesting post from Douglas Carswell on UK's contribution to the Irish bailout. Despite the Chancellor, George Osborne suggesting on Radio 4's Today program this morning that the UK was acting because Ireland was a 'friend in need', it now seems that article 122 of the Lisbon Treaty requires us to contribute to any bailout, under the European Stabilisation Mechanism.

This mechanism is about granting financial assistance to a Member State in difficulties or seriously threatened with severe difficulties caused by exceptional occurrences beyond its control. This financial assistance shall take the form of a loan or of a credit line granted to the Member State concerned.


Disingenuous?

The danger of irrelevance

What a contrast on today's Andrew Marr show between the way he interviewed Alan Johnson and George Osborne - Shadow and Chancellor respectively. The former sounded like a fireside chat between two luvvies whilst Osborne got the full Marr treatment. Not that the response was anything but a confident and comprehensive narrative to this weeks CSR - but I guess you'd expect that.

Looks like the BBC has decided that Labour's increasing irrelevance in economic policy should bring them an easy ride.

Osborne plays Brown

Interesting piece from James Forsyth in this weeks Spectator on the loss in Child Benefit for higher rate tax payers - accessed via ipad, so no link.

Titled 'If Cameron is heir to Blair, Osborne is heir to Brown' it looks at the tactical nature of George Osborne suggesting that the Child Benefit move was a tactical attempt to wrong-foot Labour - straight out of the Gordon Brown political guide.

If they accept that people earning over £44,000 should shoulder more responsibility, they are accepting an end to universal benefits and the enormous client base built up over 13 years of Labour government. If they object and defend the 15%  most wealthy, they become morally indefensible.

Child Benefit

Pretty pedestrian speech from George Osborne this morning finishing with that terrible slogan 'Together in the National Interest'. Whoever thought that up?

But one small issue around child benefit that I heard raised at Liberal Conspiracy suggesting that its an attack on women can be put to bed.
Listening to George Osborne on the Today program, he explained that child benefit would be claimed back through the tax system from anyone earning over £44,000pa. Not from their partner.

Peter Oborne on coalition

Excellent piece from Peter Oborne in tomorrows Telegraph including the thoughts:

• ...the Coalition has pulled off a remarkable feat. It is simultaneously playing the role of Government and Opposition.
• ...the only thing that matters is the economic contest between Ed Balls and George Osborne. Only one of them can be proved right – and it will be winner take all.

Well worth a read.