By Liam Byrne MP / @LiamByrneMP
Yesterday, George Osborne comprehensively failed the credibility test – and a basic test of fairness. His plans fail to meet Labour’s pledge to halve the deficit over four years. He claimed “we are all in this together” – but his first priority remains a tax cut for the richest families.
The Credibility Test
People expected George Osborne to set out by how much he would cut the deficit, just as the Government has done by committing to cut it in half over four years. We heard nothing of the sort.
The Tories told us that George Osborne’s speech would set out clearly how they would pay for their long list of unfunded tax and spending commitments - “by this time tomorrow you should know just about everything”, Eric Pickles said on Monday.
But the speech doesn’t even pay for itself, let alone make any progress on their irresponsible plans for tax and spend, or matching the Government’s plan to halve the deficit over four years.
First, people were expecting the Conservatives to drop the tax and spending pledges they have already made – just six of which were estimated in The Independent to cost £54bn. Yet all the uncosted pledges stayed.
Second, the Tories were expected to drop their pledges on inheritance tax and marriage tax allowance. Yet it stayed.
Third, Osborne’s new idea to reverse the dividend tax credit change would cost £3-5bn a year – far more than the concrete savings he outlined. Fourth, Osborne’s plan for a tax cut for small business, announced last night, that would undercut existing firms, remained unfunded – in fact it wasn’t even mentioned in yesterday’s speech.
Worse, their plans on raising the retirement age completely unravelled.
Last night George Osborne briefed that he would save £13bn a year by raising the retirement age for men and women to 66 by 2016. But the Shadow Chancellor’s new policy has already been downgraded, by David Cameron, to an independent review without even a chair to put a name to it. And the firm 2016 date for implementation has disappeared for women and been watered down for men.
Even before the u-turn it was clear the savings figure didn’t stack up. And even once they’ve got their costings right, the change still won’t raise a penny in the next Parliament when we are halving the deficit. To get anywhere near £13bn of savings would require much faster increases in the retirement age for everyone, including women. If that is the Tories' plan they should come clean on it.
The Fairness Test
Mr Osborne’s fairness failure was even worse. His credibility failure left him simply attacking the middle class to pay for the Tory tax cut for the richest few. He stuck by his plans for an inheritance tax cut of £200,000 for the richest 3,000 families, for which the mainstream middle will have to pay. His plans would mean:
* 900,000 children would miss out on Child Trust Funds. Providers would stop offering accounts at all in some cases. For families earning over £16,040 with two children they would lose £1,000 in direct payments for their children.
* The removal of tax credits from those over £50,000 would hit 130,000 families and only raise £40m – the Tories' promise to save £400m would mean affecting families on much lower incomes than £50,000.
So, bad maths. And worse morals.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
It's a great shame that Bully Byrne (note to his office staff: my coffee at 10.43 am, my lunch at 12.54 pm, my tea at 84 degrees, my cup-a-soup at 77 degrees) cannot grasp that much of what he says is just untrue.
And he's so important you can bet he won't respond to any comments here. He'll just appear again when he's got another load of disconnected garbage to spew.
ALEC: can't you make it a condition of contributing that authors have to respond to views on their article?
No one expected Osborne to give next years budget but he was honest to say that it would hurt. Until a couple of months back Brown was still going on about Labours investment of 0%. Investment vs cuts. Mr 10%.
The thing is I just don't trust Labour anymore.
Every time it is asked a question it lies, spins or slurs. When Labours own review said 100,000 civil servant jobs should go what did Labour do? They moved 100,000 civil servants from one job to another.
If you can't even tackle basic efficiency gains how are you going to tackle the massive structural deficit that you have created?
I will be affected by Osbornes announced cuts but hey, I think they're needed. I live in the real world and I approve of the Tories honesty.
Yes, but not in anyone's wildest spin filed dreams is it Osbourne's "first priority"
I've just noticed that the author is an MP. For the love of god, is your reputation not low enough without transparent lying like this?
It's insulting the intelligence of the electorate.
There are people who work but work for very low wages. Thanks to your pal Thatcher and later Blair and their love of the "flexible" workforce, there are many people in that position.
I just loathe sanctimonious humbug of people like Osborne and Cameron.
I mentioned today two stories both appearing in the freesheet City A.M. today:
The first is the headline from the front page " TORY CUTS MUST GO FURTHER SAYS CITY". Their editor Alister Heath fully concurs. he thought the reheated Freud plans, which Cameron was so anxious to describe on Sunday, to avoid talking about his reluctance to keep his promise on the Lisbon treaty referendum were "wonderful" in his editorial the other day and in the same piece lamented the fact that Ms Tracey Emin, she of the unmade bed was thinking of leaving these shores because of the 50% tax rate. This, according to Heath was a "tragedy" that "artists and entertainers" were thinking of leaving the UK. A tragedy indeed - most of these so-called "entertainers" have been in semi retirement for years.
the other piece from todays City AM is from Page 11:
"ASSET MANAGEMENTS FINEST ON SPARKLING FORM IN WESTMINSTER:
It was off to the Banquetting House in Whitehall last night to celebrate with the great and the good of the asset management world, toasting themselves at the Financial News Awards For Excellence in Institutional Asset Management for having survived one of the most dire years the industry has ever seen.....the stars of the show can return to work today smugly brandishing their trophies - or at least, as one cynical guest remarked, 'preparing to demand a pay rise' "
Remember, Guy, "we are all in this together" duckie!
That's just a straight forward, bare faced lie. You know it, I know it and everyone who reads this knows it. It isn't even spin, just a plain lie.
Osbourne's been saying repeatedly that this cannot be a priority at this time so it is not remotely his first priority.
For that reason, the rest of the article isn't worth reading and you have no credibility whatsoever, not unlike your leader who thinks he can halve the deficit simply by talking about it. Actions speak louder than words
I ask again do you have to be born poor in a council estate to have experienced "real life"?
I was born into a middle class family, went to a good school, graduated at a time when few did, went into a profession and lead a very comfortable life.
Should that exclude me from public iffice as I have no lived a "real life"?
Is so it seems that you are saying that anyone who has more than others, who has succeeded and who has been sheltered from the worst aspects of life by his/her parents (which is what parents are supposed to do after all) is unfit to hold office as they have not expericence "real life".
Life is as real in the Surrey countryside today as it is in a Manchester estate. It may be nicer and more peaceful but I am just as "alive" as some child of a benefit dependent family.
Your views are nothing but old fashioned reversed socialist snobbery. If you want to play this game then my reply would be simple:
No child of poverty or deprivation has lived my middle class "real life" so I coul dnever vote for them or their party as they have not a clue about what "real life" for the middle classes means.
Let's play that game and see who wins shall we?
Why don't you stop trying to argue and just repeat the phrase "I hate Tories. They eat babies, rape virgins and suck the blood of the poor"?
madasa fish "
Madasa fish. Grow up. Or shut up. preferably both.
I am afraid the "New Conservatives" that Cameron-Blair now so proudly speaks of, shows it is far more interested in keeping the City and well-off at the top of their list of priorities.
I very much hope whichever dreadful party wins the election they do so with a wafer thin majority, and it is about time, if the Tories really want to portray themselves as honest and clean to sack people like Gove and especially Wiggins from the front line following their dishonesty with their expense claims. I hope this issue comes back to haunt both parties at the time of the next election
Fantastic article. The scales have fallen from my eyes. I now realise that the government are in control of our finances and that they have been both straight forwards and honest.
Rest assured that I will now spend the run up to the election singing the praises of Gordon Brown on the streets. It would clearly be ridiculous, nay - suicidal, were we to elect anyone other than Labour.
You may consider me a convert.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1218637/Another-Blair-house-Cherie-pays-1m-cash-mews-home-thatll-property-number-six.html
Of course it is unlikely any inheritance Tax will be payable as it is rumoured that the Blairs are no longer resident in the UK for tax purposes..Anything to avoid the 50p tax rate?
So class politics on one side, but no comment on Tony Blair on the other.
More hypocrisy?
Sam
Or the £50,000 cap on public sector pension.
Or the removal of child benefit to household incomes over £50,000.
You simply weren't paying attention.
Less of the 'flat cap whingineg' comments please, I have a flat cap (although I also have the Spaniel, Land Rover Purdey and a landed family to go with it) (I am joking... I don't have a Purdey...lol)
The latter was particularily difficult to work with as it consistently led the user into doing U Turns and the former has a slot on the back to automatically print the required money for all that investment.
After that there was an unspecified cut of £3bn on the civil service, what happened to the 10% cut across the board???
This leaves us with three options
1. The Tories are planning draconian cuts but do not want to admit to them as they are electoral suicide – not the “honest” billing of the speech
2. The situation is not as bad as they have been making out and the combination of growth, and Labour’s proposed tax rises and these small ‘dents’ will do the job
3. They don’t really have any policies
I see Mr Bryne asks about the fairness test? How about what was fair about doubling the 10p tax ?
What was fair about 600,000 Iraqi lives?
What was fair about the welfare reforms?
What was fair about lying to voters to get elected?
ricki
Very good post and true , Our leadership dont get it , its the spin the bare-faced lies and the voters can spot them a mile of, We have lost the trust of the voters and we must find a way of getting it back , We also have to stop trying to out tory the torys .
ricki
Firstly, there is no such single defined thing as real life, is there? I presume you mean some kind of hard-won-not-to-well-paid-job-that-I-would-consider-worthy.
Secondly, having a privileged life is hardly his fault, and does not of itself lead to any reliable prediction as to his performance or character.
Thirdly, 'bag carrier'? Try assistant. Being an assistant to the Chancellor might be thought something of an achievement. Who are Alastair Darlings bag carriers, I wonder?
Fourthly, 'now defunct'? Cameron's fault I suppose? No, I thought not, so why say it.
Lighten up, it's sunny out there, go for a walk. Smile.
What's "real life" Alan. Do we all have to have been born poor in a council estate to be viewed as acceptable for public office?
How many students go to Oxbridge each year? Are they all not living a "real life"?
Is what you're saying that if you are wealthy you are good for paying high rates of tax but you can't ever stand for public office because the flat cap socialist brigade will hound you for not having had relatives who worked down a pit for 40 years?
As for what jobs were held before politics let’s go through a few Labour examples:
Gordon Brown
4 years as a junior teacher of politics at a college and 3 years as a journalist at Scottish Television.
Can you tell me how that experience set him up for the role of PM?
Harriet Harman
4 years as a legal officer for the National Council for Civil Liberties. Her most notable achievement was to be found guilty of contempt of court.
Her aunt is Lady Longford and her cousins include Lady Rachel Billington and Lady Antonia Fraser
Tell me if this "experience" is adequate for a minister of state and deputy leader of the Labour party?
Does she strike you as having suffered enough in her upbringing to know "real life"?
Ed Balls
4 years as an economics journalist for the FT then straight into work for the Labour government. Great "real world" experience there then?
Oh and he went to the private school Nottingham Boys and was a PPE grad from Keble and a Harvard post grad. Is this any less "real world" experience than Osborne?
David Milliband
Despite on 3 B grades and a D at A level he studied PPE at Corpus Christi. Lucky it wasn't now else he'd have been at the old Wolverhampton Poly.
He spent 5 years at the IPPR (Labour think tank) in the role of policy analyst before being promoted by...... John Smith Leader of the Labour party.
So lots of "real world" experience there?
I could go on and on about the "real world" experience of Labour but those four should suffice, public school boys, PPE Oxbridge scholars, relative to the aristocracy etc.
If we were to apply your criticism of Osborne to the Labour front bench they'd be virtually no one left.
Nothing like the usual Labour inverted class snobbery and flat cap whinging is there?
GB is lying through his teeth yet again when he says Labour will halve the deficit over 4 years, I know, the electorate knows it and you know what, the cabinet knows it as well. He started off this year with the line that Labour would invest but the Conservatives would cut, then what happens? He has to admit there will be cuts, deep cuts and Darling yesterday came up with the wage busting element of the great plan. GB hasn't a clue how to connect with the electorate because he keeps lying. He's ignoring the truth and the Conservatives are gaining much ground because they're not sugar coating it, they're percieved to be telling the truth and the line "We're in it together" has a semblance of truth. Did he announce he was going to lower the 50% tax rate? Remember that tax rise that Labour promised in their manifesto would never happen? Have the Conservatives promised to remove it?
Sorry, well actually, no I'm not sorry, you're just burying your head in the sand alongside GB and Darling if you believe a word of what you've written. Why can't you just accept that GB's performance at the conference was pathetic, the ideas old and worn out and chock it up to yet another lost opportunity? GB could have been honest, he could have set the record straight and he could have used his time to have an open dialogue with the British people, but instead he chose to posture, he chose to dig out policy ideas from the '90s and worst of all he chose to invoke the memory of his childhood as if it would make the slightest difference to how the electorate percieve him.
You don't like Osborne's maths? You think he has bad morals? I might agree with you, but the country doesn't. They don't like GB and Darling's bad maths, they don't think either of them have any morals and they percieve the pair to be liars. Osborne is the lesser of two evils. It's unfortunate, but more so because the pair of them are liars, and bad ones at that.
Indeed, when he said that "we are all in this together" I waited to hear what proposals he had for the rich to contribute to reducing the deficit. Oddly, those plans must have been on a sheet of his speach that somehow must have got lost because I didn't hear any plans to make those who can most afford to pay more actually pay more.
Osbourn's plan is to make the middle earners pay the bulk, and to take away benefits from the vulnerable. The Nasty Party is back.
So thousands of part time workers (mainly working mothers trying to juggle work and child care) will have their already low take home salary frozen.
I was worried that the Tories would land a knock out punch this week, but they have really failed to deliver. Even their friends in 'Fleet Street' are having problems spinning this damp squib.
You don't know what George Osborne has to offer until he does the job. He could have run a huge company, or flown to the moon or counted all the grains of sand on Bournemouth beach. None mean he would be bad or good as Chancellor. It is about intelligence and character. He seems to have shown enough of both not to be discounted except by those foaming at the mouth. I
Alan, your flecks of spittle are showing.
Why don't you stop trying to argue and just repeat the phrase "I hate Tories. They eat babies, rape virgins and suck the blood of the poor"?
Because that is what your arguments consist of. No attempt to discuss : just a long diatribe on personalities.
Could someone help me , If we are going to halve the defict in for years thats means it will be around 100 billion (175 billion now ) so how are we going to do that with all the spending promises made at our confrence ?
ricki
Well Devon Chap what CAN they offer? Osborne has never had any experience of real life, and has led a privleged life. Cameron apart from being Norman Lamont's 1992 bag carrier had a nice little job at the now defunct Carlton TV.
A strong recommendation indeed!
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Budget2009/bud09_chapterc_463.pdf
That's YOUR own Treasury figures and that's if you manage to stick to them and they don't get any worse.
So when are you going to halve it, certainly not in the next government term (were Labour to be elected). I was going to say it sounds like more spin, but I'd say it was down right misleading.
And on the London Mayor's deputy, the difference is, Boris kicked him out and reported him, I don't see Gordon Brown jumping on people like Baroness Scotland, who employed an over stayer, didn't pay tax for most of her employment and who took £170K of our money (that she shouldn't have) and this is the Attorney General, who really should be whiter than white (no pun intended).
Get your own house in order first, before you start trying to fling the mud.
A salary of £18,000 is very small indeed these days. I should hope that such people would not be penalised. Bad luck if you only earn £18,250 though. No money for moat cleaning next year!.
Later on, when I have it to hand I am going to give two quotes from the afore-m,entioned City AM because I think it is highly indicative of the hypocrisy of the "New Conservatives" (I notice their "Heir to Blair" Cameron actually used that term on Monday)
But if you, for example, a dustman approaching 60 would you vote for a government that was going to make you do that rotten work for an extra year, when the original plans were meant to kick in a decade later? That is just one example. there are very unpleasant tiring jobs that Eton and City types can't even imagine and jejune George does sound very condescending. I think he is even more repulsive than his leader (and even James Pur-nell) and that is saying soemthing!
What difference is it that the speech was made by a well off man under 40. If the same speech was made by David Davis who is an older man from a poor background, would that have made it better? This is stupid prejudice.
I thought Labour would judge people by what they can offer, not where they are from?
I'm sorry you must have watched a different speech to me yesterday.
As for who has to make sacrifices; pretty much everyone is going to have to chip in. Very few people are exempt; those in the public sector earning less than £18,000 a year and those in the Armed Forces on active duty.
As for the ad homimens.... desperate stuff really and not worth a comment.
When Lord Mandelson wears a £20,000 watch, you can hardly complain about Conservative millionaires.
As for expenses and corruption, Lady Scotland is still in post despite breaking the law.
I'd abandon the argument there if I were you. For ever Tory you quote, there is at least one Labour one.
Mandelson of course resigned twice.. I wonder why...
And just to show hypocrisy is a Tory as well as a New Labour fault, I see that Cameron broke his own embargo on champagne celebrations last night and quaffed it at one of the conference events.
I find it quite stomach churning that a group of wealthy over-priveleged people dare to tell some of the poorest people in society that they must make sacrifices and that they will be the main victims of Camerons austerity. Osborne sounds like some 17 year old school debater, jejune and cocky.
We need to do more than halve the deficit. We need to tackle the structual deficit. Mr Byrne attacks the Tories for failing to say how they will do that but I didn't hear a word at Labour's conference about how they intend to. In fact the only cut Darling announced was during the Tory one.
When Labour have laid out their cuts, their route to financial sanity will they be in a position to criticise the Tories for the lack of morals in their plans. Until then it is hot air, and Mr Byrne knows that.
Hmm Is that the pledge of the Labour Party which doubled the deficit this year - unplanned?
Yes.
Is this the Labour Party which told us there would be NO Labour cuts but Labour investment - only on 1th September 2009 ?
Yes.
Is this the Labour Party that has already cut Inheritance Tax: thus favouring the wealthy ?
Yes.
Is this the Labour Party that told us Britain was best placed of all western countries to emerge from recession- only for us
to be last to emerge in 2009fail to emerge from recession yet?Yes.
May I suggest Mr Byrne apologise for his Governments mistakes and re-establish some credibility by telling the truth. When he has achieved that, he can then criticise the Conservatives. Until then, he has as much credibility as the Prime Minister - none.
"I do so love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning."
With apologies to Apocalypse Now.
Yesterday, by the way, one of Boris Johnson's deputy Mayors was given a twelve week prison sentence (hardly adequate anyway) SUSPENDED for misuse of his official credit card - he misused it three times to entertain his mistress!. If a non-politician did the same thing I have little doubt that the custodial sentence would NOT have been suspended. Mind you, Mrt Cameron doesn't only have that to be ashamed of - one of his buddies Eton contemporary Charlie Wiggins had a "phantom mortgage" (like Morely and Chaytor) and in his case he hasn't even been required to give up his party job, let alone be deselected.
If Cameron/Osborne want to be REALLY clean decent and honest, let them clean up their own mess first.
I doubt that Boy George's "candour" will do his party much of a favour with the public, and it may well be that the public will think of that saying about the devil you know..... Not that I think it credible that New Labour can continue with most of the current cabinet, or at least the old time-expired Blairites that still cling on like dirty glue.
Perhaps he did his sums on Labour's magic calculator. You know, the one which only does addition and hasn;t got enough decimal spaces to calculate £101 billion of government misspending
As for morals, well, where do you want to start? Hazel Blears, Margaret Moran and Jacqui Smith's expenses? John Prescott's use of Government Offices to develop a closer relationship with his diary secretary? Damian McBride's novel email initiative? Mandy's mortgage arrangements? Keith Vaz's dealings with the Passport Office? Ron Davies's badger watching? . Jo Moore's delicious description of 9/11 as "a good day to bury bad news?
In fact you could write a book about Labour's morals. Oops, somebody already has (http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/reader/190564132X/ref=sib_dp_ptu#reader-link)
Etc etc etc.
New Labour - "Hypocrisy Matters".
Three weeks ago, Labour were promoting 0% spending increases and Labour investment v Tory cuts. A political argument you were very happy to pursue; now these cuts aren't good enough.
Excuse me but you lost all credibility by lying to the public in the first place that cuts were not necessary at all.
In terms of more objective feedback from other commentators it is a lot more positive. I notice too that the City reacted favourably.
Perhaps you are just sore that your pension is going to be capped.
Labour might give a pledge to halve the deficit over four years but you have not given any details at all. On that front, Osborne has you beaten hands down.
How are we going to halve the defict? How will we help the poor? What unessery spending are we doing that we shouldnt be doing and shouldnt we be more careful with taxpayers money?
Why should we belive the leadership ? Why are we cutting the education budget then have Mr Brown saying we are not cutting education ?
Stop the spin and lies
ricki