There is no doubt that, ideologically, it's easier for them to cut Government and public sector spending. So when George Osborne says he had no choice he's just plain wrong.
There are always choices about what to cut expenditure and where to increase income. An increase in the top rate of tax and even another tax band would have been seen as fair and would have affected fewer people. By definition, the people paying such tax are fewer in number than those below the threshold.So, the only conclusion you can draw is that it wasn't 'politically desirable'.
The other mistake is to believe that cuts in public expenditure are somehoe free. There will be job losses and an increase in unemployment. There will be an increase in benefit claims. Do these figures stack up?
And if unemployment ends up costing more than the preceding savings - how would this Chancellor balance the books? More cuts?
Incidentally, am I the only one who thinks Osbourne looks like he should be a pantomime dame? When he speaks he also reminded me of someone else and I couldn't quite think who...
I think it may be Piers Fletcher-Dervish, the hapless Tory MP sidekick of Rik Mayall's Alan B'stard. Time for Marks and Gran to return?
