Lower spending increases are not spending cuts: 2
When I heard that David Cameron had dropped the promise to match Labour's spending increases, I had two immediate reactions
1) Given the increasingly dire financial position and Labour's reckless tax and spending plans, this is the right thing to do: it appears unlikely that the country will still be able to afford increases on the scale currently proposed.
2) We will need to be on our guard, because Labour and some of their allies in the media will dishonestly misrepesent lower spending increases as spending cuts.
The Labour MP for Copeland proved me right on the second point almost instantly. A quick look at Hansard reveals the following question which he asked at this week's PMQs (Prime Minister's Questions):
Jamie Reed (Lab, Copeland): "Constituencies such as mine are set to benefit from new schools, new hospitals, new health facilities and new social housing in the near future, but those developments will be put at risk by the public spending cuts from the Opposition. Does the Prime Minister agree that constituencies such as mine throughout the north of England would be decimated by such proposals?"
The Conservatives have not proposed "public spending cuts" in schools, hospitals, health facilities, or social housing.
We are not in a position to put forward a budget for what a Conservative government will do if elected, when the election may not take place for about 18 months, though we will do so in our manifesto when an election is called. The "decimation" which the MP for Copeland refers to exists only in his overactive imagination.
We have dropped a guarantee to match Labour increases - but if that means we end up spending less, the intention is to economise on bureacracy, regulations, and quangoes, not front line services like schools and hospitals.
If he spent more time taking up issues of concern to his constituents and less time inventing imaginary Conservative policies to attack he would be a much better MP.
1) Given the increasingly dire financial position and Labour's reckless tax and spending plans, this is the right thing to do: it appears unlikely that the country will still be able to afford increases on the scale currently proposed.
2) We will need to be on our guard, because Labour and some of their allies in the media will dishonestly misrepesent lower spending increases as spending cuts.
The Labour MP for Copeland proved me right on the second point almost instantly. A quick look at Hansard reveals the following question which he asked at this week's PMQs (Prime Minister's Questions):
Jamie Reed (Lab, Copeland): "Constituencies such as mine are set to benefit from new schools, new hospitals, new health facilities and new social housing in the near future, but those developments will be put at risk by the public spending cuts from the Opposition. Does the Prime Minister agree that constituencies such as mine throughout the north of England would be decimated by such proposals?"
The Conservatives have not proposed "public spending cuts" in schools, hospitals, health facilities, or social housing.
We are not in a position to put forward a budget for what a Conservative government will do if elected, when the election may not take place for about 18 months, though we will do so in our manifesto when an election is called. The "decimation" which the MP for Copeland refers to exists only in his overactive imagination.
We have dropped a guarantee to match Labour increases - but if that means we end up spending less, the intention is to economise on bureacracy, regulations, and quangoes, not front line services like schools and hospitals.
If he spent more time taking up issues of concern to his constituents and less time inventing imaginary Conservative policies to attack he would be a much better MP.
Comments