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?
This all feels very unsure. I look at Japan and the mess that they are in and I don't have any confidence in this government to sort it out. I agree with you Phil that cuts are usually job cuts, afterall you can't save much money by cutting back on entertaining and travel. This is typical of British politics. One party has made a mess of the economy (by trusting banks and believing that they had mastered our economy)the other party then comes in and takes advantage of the situation. Does David Cameron really have the British publlic at heart or does he just want to preserve the lifestyle of his 'sort', very few if any who will work in public services.
ReplyDelete