Prime Minister cutting Trident budget.  Prime Minister cutting £2bn off education spending.  More cuts yet to be announced as Whitehall Mandarins currently do the maths.  Where does this leave the Tories?  Is the Emperor trying to steal our clothes?

One of the key differentiators over the summer, ‘clear blue water’, between Labour and Tories has been the early identification by the Conservatives that there needed to be spending cuts to reduce the spiralling deficit.  Pre the recess Gordon Brown was scornful of Cameron’s policies.  At times deeply patronising.  For Brown the choice was between ‘Tory cuts, Labour Investment’.  Cameron was Mr 10%.  The man would axe teachers, health workers, public sector jobs etc.  Oh how times have changed over the Summer.  Brown has been dragged kicking and screaming down the road to Damascus.

Labour have now u-turned.  They have done a complete 180 degree turn and now are prioritising expenditure reviews….only because necessity dictates.  Brown wants to avoid that visit to the IMF, cap in hand, for a bailout of bankrupt Britain….pre the election at least.  So how has this situation developed over the past 2 weeks?  First up, leaked Treasury documents showed that Labour have been in the planning stages of 10% cuts over this summer, (making the abuse that Brown gave Cameron as Mr 10% farcical and deeply offensive).  Ed Balls comes out at the weekend to announce £2bn cuts in education spending.  Yes, this involves axing teaching staff, (something Cameron had been accused of).  Now today, Brown announces he is planning to cut circa 1/4 off Trident spending.  More spending cuts will be announced over the coming weeks.

Trident is an easy card for Brown to play.  He needs his friends on the Left of the Party.  The card carrying dregs left of CND will rejoice that this decision is a move in their direction, albeit only 1 submarine!   It will be interesting to see how Cameron plays the Trident decision.  The Conservatives have always been the Party of Defence.  Known for strong investment into the defence of the realm.  Does he play this card?  Does Cameron say that Labour is leaving the country weaker, as evidenced by the Afghanistan war with soldiers left with insufficient manpower, equipment, armoury, transportation and air power, backing this up with cuts in Trident? 

Or does Cameron focus on economic reality.  He needs to make big cuts.  Not every area can be ring fenced.  The health service is sacrosanct. But cuts need to be made, is Trident one area?  Tough decisions, which will be political by nature.  Cameron also has to be aware of the prevailing times.  Obama’s New World Order, reduce nuclear proliferation.  But times that also pose new dangers.  Unpredictable rogue states like Iran, North Korea, an unstable Pakistan and a real threat of a non conclusion to the Afghanistan War, hence leaving the Taliban regaining control.  Real danger exists and must never be discounted.

The public spending debate is starting to change.  It is no longer a choice of cuts vs. investment.  It is a choice of what gets cut and how much?  As we move forward, ardent critics of the Government’s policy in the past who urged drastic cuts in spending like World Bank, IMF, IOD, CBI, will neutralize their stance / start to make positive noises towards Labour, as they at last announce cuts.  The public sometimes have short memories and hence while the Tories led the way on proposing cuts, the Government will demonstrate they have been cutting, hence moving some way to shortening / blurring the clear blue water we built on this issue.

Now what is the best policy for the Conservatives moving forward?  We could be out manoeuvred by Labour!  This is a key strategic decision by Cameron & team.

Option 1 is silence.  Do the Conservatives need to detail all the policy areas they would cut?  This in effect is the age old argument over whether an Opposition should reveal a shadow budget.  Given spending decisions are being made, unpopularity will follow for this Government.  Already in education, teaching unions are discussing the need for strike action.  Do the Conservatives need to enter into a spending squabble between the Government and Teaching Unions, when we can leave them to it and grab the pop corn and enjoy the fireworks and watch our poll ratings rise.   As other cuts are announced.  More attacks will be made on the Government by those affected.  Strikes will follow.  Public protests.  Marches.  Demonstrations.  All from which we could sit back and watch poll support, in theory rise!

Danger of this strategy is Labour’s response and whether it would resonate with the public.  It is clear that Mandolsen’s strategy in the next election will be, there will be gentle cuts under Labour, precision cuts by a skilled surgeon, and the slogan will be life would be worse under the Tories.  They will state that Tories would propose ‘savage’ cuts.  They will try to paint us as ideologically committed and turned on by spending cuts.  They will paint us as the Party of Unemployment.  This will be the line that every Cabinet Minister will subconsciously try to drum into the electorate’s head.  But will the electorate believe that?  Will they trust a proven lying Government?  That’s the gamble.

Option 2.  That is for the Conservatives to take charge of the spending question.  George Osborne could call a press conference this week and show economic leadership by providing more detail in what Conservatives propose to cut.  We know that Whitehall is preparing the figures and Ministers chewing over what has to be cut.  Before they announce their results, Osborne could have trumped them and then accused Labour of copying Conservative proposals.  We know that Labour are happy to steal our clothing.  Look at Tony Blair.  New Labour was socialism in a pink dress and nice stiletto’s, hiding the evils which lay beneath. 

These are interesting strategic times.  Critical as we approach the next election.  As Conservatives move further towards the Left to attract Liberal Democrat voters, we have to ensure that a clear choice still remains for the electorate.  Choosing between different shades of the same colour can make it easier for bigger poll swings, one way or another.  Electoral volatility is well known in our electoral history.  1992 is a great example, with Major beating the odds, despite poll ratings being wildly wrong.

Of course, Labour are mightily unpopular today.  But what if Brown does decide to retire early because of failing health.  What if the Labour Conference next week is so rebellious, that more follow Charles Clarke and openly criticise Brown, that Brown either quits for the Party of the men in grey coats knock at the doors of Number 10.  The smiling Alan Johnson, the most likely benefactor of Brown going, would enjoy a media bounce and chance to change the Party’s policies, say he is listening to the Public, then the subsequent 3 month honeymoon period, could make it tougher for the Conservatives to achieve the thumping majority we all crave for, (if a snap election had been called to correspond with the honeymoon period).

So what is the clear blue water?  What differentiates us from the other parties?  Well several cards are ours to play.  Core issues like Europe, immigration and taxation are natural Conservative areas.  These are currently on the back burner.  Unplayed winning hands.  Why are they not being played some will ask?

The answer is that polls show that the biggest pool of undecided voters lay in the centre ground.  Lib Dem supporters are volatile.  They are feeling ‘warm and fuzzy’ towards Conservatives.  Given our core supporters want / demand change away from this dreadful Socialist Government, we can bank on their support.  Their votes are in the bank, (however much they want a real swing to the right).  So naturally, as we saw Eric Pickles do last week, the Party seeks to attract Lib Dem voters by playing smooth, sensual, alluring tunes to their supporters to dance to.  Pickles won’t play the Europe card now, as Clegg himself identifies, Lib Dems and Conservatives have different visions of Europe.  Lib Dems love the European Superstate.  Hence, keep Europe off the table.  Discussing Europe will make us less appealing to Lib Dem floaters.  Whilst the Party can, it advisably follows the strategy of winning and building upon core support and keeping away from controversial issues that could be divisive.  No need to rock the boat in the delicate run up to the election.

But….here comes the but….if this Government start to reduce the clear blue water, starts rising in the polls, voters getting more confused at who offers what…..no doubt the European question, Immigration and Tax will raise their head again.  But only if and when the Party need to differentiate itself.  Until that point, the controversial issues will lie sleeping…….

Great to have Scott Newton back with another great blog contribution.  Over to you Scott.  Thanks, as ever, for your support.

————————————————————————-

LABOUR INVESTMENT Vs TORY CUTS, ANOTHER PATHOLOGICAL LIE FROM LABOUR! AND WINTER OF DISCONTENT THE SECOND INEVITABLE?
 
So, Gordon Brown has finally said the Dreaded C Word ‘Cuts’. This time he is not referring to the Conservative Party with his Socialist dogmatic attitude. This time he is actually referring to his own Party, His own Policy, and His Understanding that we are officially bankrupt as a Country and the only way to reduce the Public Sector Debt is with Cuts. So the repeated phrases from Brown like, ‘Tory Cuts Vs Labour Investment is out the Window’ just like Gordon Brown and his Labour Government will be in the next General Election
 
I was watching the TUC live on BBC Parliament when the Prime Minister was making his annual Speech. He struck me as being a ‘bundle of Nerves’ when talking to the Congress. The Union’s were being typical of Protectionism for State Employed workers, demanding safety and Continuous Employment for all employees in the Recession. I think people like Brendan Barber & other Trade Union Bosses are living in a Dream World when it comes to making so much of a demand for protectionism and full state employment, when those in the productive Private Sector are really feeling the pinch due to Labour’s awful economic Policy since 1997.  Brown’s acts as Chancellor of keeping no Capital Afloat in the Treasury in case of a rainy Day have led to the demise of this Nation. He Spent, Spent, and Spent as Chancellor. When Sir John Major left office in the Labour win of 1997, interest Rates were Low, Debt’s Low, a Private Sector Economy Booming, a Managed Civil Service, and also Employment falling to record low numbers.  John Major had 1000x the integrity and Economic Competence of Alastair Darling, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown put together.

We have once again arrived at the time old Truth that all Labour Government’s run out of Money. We have a huge Government State squeezing the Productive bit of the Economy, Union’s once again out of control with Demands of Protectionism and more State Jobs being Created, we have a Bankrupt NHS which will have to be seriously looked at in 2011 if it is to be saved as a National Asset, A Welfare State in desperate need of reform, The Dark Prospect’s of Brown and Darling running to the IMF in need of emergency Capital.

So these next 8-9 Month’s before Election time is going to be played very dirty by Labour. But the people of the United Kingdom are wise and not stupid, they will not fall for it this time. So Brown save yourself the Bother, Resign get down to the Palace and Call that General Election! We in the Conservative Party are ready to Govern with a United Team, a United Party and an Economic Plan to move the country forward! And I will put every bit of faith in David and George. There is also the time old truth that Conservative Government always inherit a Bankrupt Nation a Labour Government. And we always seem to fix the problem!
 
Thank you. Scott Newton-Conservative Party Member. Newcastle upon Tyne.

Our economy is in a sick state.  Public debt is our cancerous growth which threatens to make us the sick man of Europe again.

As we review costs, maybe now is the time to review Trident and for OUR Party to place this on the Political Agenda.  But not for cost reasons…for political reasons…..(although saving £76 billion is a nice slice off the national debt, to go with the £45 billion for the ID Card Scheme).

Barack Obama has called for a nuclear proliferation summit for Spring 2010.  The language is softer…the goals clear.

Yes our goal must be to reduce nuclear weapons to the barest minimum but we reduce by ‘collective action’ and not unilaterally.  No unilateral cuts in our submarines or 160 warheads but that does not mean we cant discuss upgrade & cost reduction.

Obama is offering the world real cuts in nuclear stockpiles.  Russia and the USA have already agreed fresh reductions.  Obama says any future deals would involve nuclear powers reducing their stockpiles and offering civilian nuclear know-how to non-nuclear states in return for them promising not to develop nuclear weapons. 

Russia’s biggest concern is the missile defence system that Reagan started, in Europe, aka ‘Star Wars’.  Providing Europe and the USA the umbrella of defence against attack.  Initially attack was deemed to come from the Soviet Union / Russia but now that threat is defined as from rogue nuclear nations, typically Iran.  Now this is a fascinating game of brinkmanship.  Obama says to Russia, help us stop Iran getting nuclear weapons and there is no need for our missile defence system.  Clever.  (But of course Iran is not the only rogue state. Don’t forget North Korea who are desperate to build a bomb….and no doubt would not hesitate to fire against their Southern neighbours……and the Pakistan regime is so brittle that who is to say that the Taliban don’t topple it in x period of time).

Will we ever see a world free from nuclear weapons?  No.  Because you cannot uninvent the technology for these weapons.  The moment a conflict arises then the arms race starts again.  This is not the case if minimal numbers of nuclear weapons are kept.  Minimal is the key word and definition of.

So returning to the issue of Trident upgrade.  In this current environment of a willingness to reduce weapons….what message does it send out for Great Britain to be investing in upgrading its nuclear weapons when stockpiles are being reduced.  It’s like calling for a smoking ban while lighting up a huge havana…..not the best message.

Maybe it is time that the Conservatives predicted this issue and seized the agenda on the grounds of joining the Obama agenda of reducing nuclear stockpiles across the world and upgrading does not send the best message out to our friends and neighbours…and to those states wanting a bomb.  Imagine the UK saying….’Sorry…..we dont want you to have a bomb but we will upgrade our stockpile’…….a hypocrites charter. 

Go to it Liam Fox this is your weekend to seize the political agenda on Afghanistan and also Trident upgrade.

I have to admit a certain amount of respect for the current incumbent of the Bank of England Mervyn King.  For the first time in a long time, A Governor is in place who speaks, clear, plain, English about the mess we are in.  He leaves no room for misinterpretation of what he is saying.   Previous Governors have wrapped up their language in windy and inaccessible rhetoric that the public understood as much as a riddle from….the riddler!

As mentioned on a recent blog, Mervyn had the courage, pre G20, to publicly rip up Gordon Brown’s spending cheque book and hence scupper Brown’s spending plans at G20….and rest assured he wanted to be seen pumping billions more into this economy in front of Obama et al.

Today Mervyn faced the Treasury Select Committee and was as honest as he always is.  He called Labour’s spending plans as ‘unsustainable’ and that he was ‘more uncertain than ever’ about when the recovery was coming.  King stated that:  “The scale of the public deficit is extraordinary at 12.5% of GDP which is a reflection of the scale of the global downturn but also that when we came into the recession, we were on a fiscal policy path that wasn’t sustainable.”  That last phrase is a killer statement.  We were crashing before we hit recession due to our fiscal policy path!

King demanded to understand how Darling planned to repay the rising debt and put in place a repayment schedule.   Last time he shredded Brown’s credit card.  Today he wanted to know how he was getting his money back. 

This also comes on the day that the OECD, (Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development),  paints a bleak picture for UK’seconomic outlook.  In fact the UK economy is in “sharp recession” and will shrink by 4.3% this year, its fastest pace of decline since the Second World War, and stagnate in 2010, according to the OECD. The fiscal deficit is expected to rise to 14% of economic output in 2010, compared with an average of 8.75% across the group’s 30 members.  The OECD said the UK economy was likely to recover “only mildly” in 2010, with any return to health dependent on an upturn in the housing market and credit availability. It predicted that unemployment, which stands at a 12-year high of more than 2.2 million, will “rise substantially” to 10% and “labour market conditions will remain unfavourable for a long period”.

So the OECD state that economic recovery is dependent on credit being made available…….now refer back to Mervyn King today at the Treasury Select Committee.  He warned that banks were still restricting credit to companies, hampering a recovery. King proclaimed:  “There are genuine concerns about how quickly the recovery will pick up – looking at the clear evidence, (firms) are finding it hard to access credit from the banking system. “A combination of that and real uncertainty over the global economy makes it very difficult to be confident of a rapid recovery.”

So all this rubbish from Gordon Brown at PMQ’s becomes more and more farcical each day we head closer to the election.  Today Gordon put in a poor performance.  Cameron struck home hard this week.  Now Cameron has chosen a subject, complex by nature and capital expenditure will fly over most people’s heads BUT the general public get the drift that Gordon is a liar.

I must say that Alastair Darling looks more and more uncomfortable by the week at PMQ’s.  He looks like a man bored with his lot.  Tired of the puppet master pulling his strings.

For those that missed PMQ’s look at the below text from Hansard and see how many times Cameron seeks to get Brown to admit up to his lies.  Maybe Speaker Bercow can step in and force and answer!……….

Mr. David Cameron(Witney) (Con): The Prime Minister had a bit more than the gist of the question: he had a prepared answer to it as well.

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Major Sean Birchall from the 1st Battalion Welsh Guards, who was killed in Afghanistan, and I very much agree with the Prime Minister about expressing our heartfelt sympathy to the families of Jason Swindlehurst and Jason Creswell at their loss. The Prime Minister knows that he has our full support in all the efforts being made to free the remaining hostages in Iraq.

Last week, the Prime Minister told the House:

“Capital expenditure will grow until the year of the Olympics.”

The Government’s own figures show that that is just not the case. Will he take this opportunity to correct what he told the House last week?

The Prime Minister: Well obviously yes, in the building of the Olympics capital investment will rise very substantially. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that capital investment is rising from £29 billion to £37.7 billion, and then to £44 billion in 2009–10, and that is to help complete the building of the Olympics. Thereafter it will fall as a result of decisions that we have made, but the comparison is between £44 billion of investment now and—even in real terms—the figure for 1999–2002, when he was in charge of advising at the Treasury. We are investing £44 billion: he was investing only £16 billion.

Mr. Cameron: I am afraid that that is just not good enough. Last week the Prime Minister made a very clear statement to the House of Commons. He said:

“Capital expenditure will grow until the year of the Olympics.”—[Official Report, 17 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 295.]

Here are the figures: capital expenditure this year, 2009, is £44 billion; next year, 2010, it is £36 billion; in 2011 it is £29 billion; and in the year of the Olympics, 2012, it is £26 billion. That is a cut of almost half from £44 billion to £26 billion. Will the Prime Minister now apologise, correct his statement and admit that he is cutting capital expenditure?

The Prime Minister: I was just explaining how we had brought forward capital investment to last year and this year. The figure for capital investment in 2006–07 was £36 billion. That has risen to £38 billion in 2008–09 and to £44 billion in 2009–10. That is so that we can advance capital expenditure to deal with the downturn. The problem for the right hon. Gentleman is that he wants to cut capital investment now. He wants to cut it whereas we are increasing it. We are increasing it to complete the building of the Olympics and other projects, whereas his party would be cutting capital investment now. He has got to face up to the fact that he is going to spend less than us in every year.

Mr. Cameron: The Prime Minister has been caught absolutely red-handed. He made a statement to the House about capital expenditure growing every year and the fact is that it is being cut. If he believed in transparency, honesty and truth in public life, he would get up at that Dispatch Box and say, “I’m sorry, I got it wrong. I gave the wrong figures; here are the right ones.” Now do it.

The Prime Minister: I have explained to the House that money has been brought forward to 2008–09 and 2009–10. Instead of having expenditure of just £30 billion in 2008–09, it is £38 billion. Instead of expenditure of less in 2009–10, it will be £44 billion. We took the decision to advance public expenditure to deal with the recession. Let him come clean: he would cut public expenditure this year, next year and every year after. He is trying to evade his responsibility for wanting 10 per cent. cuts.

Mr. Cameron: In the answer before last, the Prime Minister talked about the year 2007–08. In the last answer, he talked about the year 2008–09. Those years have already happened. He said at the Dispatch Box last week that capital expenditure would grow between now and the Olympics. The figures are in the Red Book, on page 226. Capital expenditure will be £44 billion in 2009, falling to £36 billion, then to £29 billion and then, in the year of the Olympics, to £26 billion. There is no other way to cut it. There is nowhere else he can hide. He must stand up, explain that he got it wrong and say that what he told the House last week was wrong. Why not do it for once?

The Prime Minister: We brought forward spending to deal with the recession. I know that he is against our bringing forward the spending, but we brought forward current and capital spending to deal with the recession. Let me tell him that spending is £44 billion in the year 2009–10. That is the highest capital expenditure ever in our country. It compares with the recession years under the Tories, when capital spending was only £12 billion or £16 billion. We are taking the action to invest in our public services—they would cut our public services now. Why does he not admit that there would be 10 per cent. cuts in public services under the Conservatives?

Mr. Cameron:Let us first of all be clear about the Prime Minister’s claims about Conservative policy. Even his own colleagues do not believe him. This is the report that we had from last week’s Cabinet:

“Darling pointed out that Brown’s Tory cut figures did not represent the”—

Conservative—

“party’s policy but were merely extrapolations”—

[HON. MEMBERS: “Ah!”] It gets more interesting:

“Cooper, previously the Treasury minister responsible for public spending, echoed his concerns”,

and:

“According to one source who was present, Brown was visibly irritated at the way he had been undermined, and brought the meeting to an early close”.

He says that he wants to be a teacher, but it sounds like he has lost control of the classroom. Last week, at that Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister did not talk about bringing forward capital expenditure. He said, very clearly:

“Capital expenditure will grow until the year of the Olympics.”— [Official Report, 17 June 2009; Vol. 494, c. 295.]

Let me give him one more chance to show that the talk of transparency, truth and honesty means something. He should find that moral compass, stand up there and tell us that he got it wrong.

The Prime Minister: I read out the figures to the House. We are spending £38 billion in that year 2008–09—more than the Tories would ever do. We are spending £44 billion in the coming year—more than the Tories would ever do. We are spending more money on capital investment than at any time in our history—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the Prime Minister, but there is simply far too much noise. The public do not like it, and neither do I.

The Prime Minister: We have to face up to the fact that a sensible debate in this country means that the Conservatives are going to cut spending on housing, education, policing and all the vital public services. The right hon. Gentleman cannot evade the fact that his figures are lower than any of ours in any year. That is the truth about public spending in our country.

Mr. Cameron: The entire country will have heard one very important thing—that this Prime Minister cannot give a straight answer, and that he is not a big enough man to say that he got it wrong.

The Prime Minister: His is the party of 10 per cent. cuts in public expenditure, and the party that would cut the vital public services at a time of recession. We have brought forward public expenditure to help people stay in their homes and get into jobs and to help build schools and hospitals. Those are exactly the public services that the Conservatives would cut savagely, by 10 per cent. That is not going to be allowed to happen. [Interruption.]

Where is Alastair Darling our Chancellor of the Exchequer?…..he is missing.  Should we notify Scotland Yard?

Have you noticed he has gone missing?  Have you seen him give any political interviews on the tv or in the press?  Why is he so quiet?  You would have thought he would be tramping the airwaves supporting his boss.  Yes, he was heading for the sack/demotion and only James Purnell’s resignation helped prevent that.  Last week at PMQ’s when Cameron was ridiculing him for being the unwanted Chancellor his face was pained and thunderous.

Even more mystifying when the debate is raging on spending cuts he is noweher to be seen.  Intriguingly, Ed Balls, (the expected next Chancellor), has been all over the media attacking George Osborne and Conservatives plans.

Why are you so quiet Alastair?  Are you having a quiet hissy-fit?  Or are you considering a damaging resignation?

Each week, over the past few months, I tune into PMQ’s and I get increasingly frustrated that Gordon Brown’s only stock reply to any question from Cameron is to point at the devastating spending cuts that Tories would introduce.  Equally frustrating is that Cameron never engages back on this very meaty subject.

David, this issue could be turned completely to your advantage.

As we heard yesterdaya major report into the UK Economy said the rapidly increasing government debt meant that Britain faces expulsion from the elite club of the world’s most financially stable countries.  The report from the ratings agency Standard & Poor sent a shock-wave of fear through the City, with the pound dropping like a stone and the FTSE-100 at one point dropping 133 points, (£31 billion loss).  (This also came on the back of stats showing public borrowing at £8.5 billion in April–a record public deficit for the month……and the recovery in mortgage lending came to a halt with a 9% fall).

So, what does this mean?  Currently Britain has a AAA rating, but Standard & Poor has downgraded it’s stance on the rating from ‘stable’ to ‘negative’.  S&P stated that if, as forecast, public debt exceeds 100% of GDP over the next few years, Britain would be stripped of its AAA status.

This would be a financial disaster for Britain.  Only the poorly economies of Spain, Portugal, Greece and Ireland have been downgraded in Europe since the start of the financial crisis.  A downgrade makes it harder for the Treasury to fund the massive borrowing programme needed to pay for public spending and the banks bail out, forcing interest rates to rise and prolonging the recession.

So, what is a statement of fact is that City Analysts say that, ‘whoever’ wins the election……yes ‘whoever’,  will be faced with having to pay back debt and this means looking at higher taxes and …. yes big spending cuts.

So let’s replay PMQ’sand give Cameron some advice…..imagine this scenario if PMQ’s were today…….

Cameron:    Would the Prime Minister agree with the comments of the The President of the CBI, Martin Broughton, that raising the higher rate of tax to 50p in the pound was an act of ‘economic vandalism’.

Brown:  What I do recognise is that we have put  the UK economy in a strong place for recovery and that the only ‘economic vandalism’ would be for a Conservative Government to introduce its savage spending cuts.

Cameron:  Mr Speaker, what is true is that this country needs strong leadership.  Strong decisions need to be taken and yes, given the growing gloom surrounding the state of the economy and this humongous debt heaped upon it by this economically illiterate Prime Minister, the right thing is to reduce public spending.  With the debt levels as they are, we have to cut spending.  It’s what all sensible analysts are recommending….the IMF, the CBI, the World Bank—you name it they all recommend it.  So here we have a lame duck Prime Minister, spending, spending and spending money this country does not have….driving the economy into the ground.  As any family knows, you cannot go on spending more than you earn…it’s unsustainable and leads to trouble and misery.  So Prime Minister, the more important question is why wont you tell the truth…you lack the bottle to take tough decisions to help the economy and you would rather not cut spending to therefore you wont seek to reduce government debt’?  Unless the Prime Minister has other plans, like another raise in taxation?

Brown:  So now we have an admittance that the Tories will cut spending, cut spending on crime, the health service and put lives in danger.  The cat is out of the bag….

Cameron:  Yes the cat is out of the bag….you will not lead and take big decisions.  You are saddling debt onto our children that will take years to repay.  Does that sit well with your conscience Prime Minister?…  and yes we will cut spending….for a start we will not spend money paying for bureaucracy and red tape in the public sector, cut out those managers supervising your ridiculous targets, cut unaffordable pay deals, cut schemes like the proposed national ID card scheme, what we wont do is cut spending in key areas like the health service…but we will ensure that nurses are liberated to do their job.  The truth today is that the Prime Minister would see Britain downgraded from its AAA financial status and leave generations paying off his mistakes.  The spendaholic Prime Minister of a spendaholic government….printing money by the billion to fuel its addiction to spend, spend, spend.  It is time for the PM to get some bottle…if he cant admit he has to reduce spending then he highlights his misunderstanding of economics is as breathtaking as the breadth of the Government’s wallet.

Get the drift.  People will understand that, like a family cant go on spending money it doesn’t have, neither can the Government.  All analysts are calling for tough economic management and spending cuts.  If the UK doesn’t cut its debt then we really are in trouble and those suffering most will the the core poorer members of society Labour seeks to protect….since unemployment will continue to rise….and the entrepreneurs who create wealth are driven away to tax havens and more competitive economies, due to Labour’s ‘class war’ tax policy.

Come on David….engage.  Make Brown look the liar and foolish in this area.

Martin Broughton, President of the CBI spoke the truth this week…..

“The use of heroic growth assumptions, together with a timetable extended to 2018, amounted to a serious failure to address the deficit in a way which gives confidence to buyers of our public debt.

“To then try to divert media attention from this failure by tearing up the manifesto commitment to the country’s entrepreneurial class — the major job creators — was nothing short of economic vandalism. What’s more — the tax take is likely to be minimal.”