Letter to George Osborne

"It is not clear to us whether these mixed messages are a deliberate attempt to obscure your plans or a symptom of a confused approach to policy but either way the public deserves better."

Over the past few months, you and your front-bench colleagues have given mixed and confusing messages on the economy and your plans for public spending.

In January, both you and David Cameron suggested that, if elected, the Conservatives would spend up to £30 billion per year less than Labour during 2010/11, yet only a month later Philip Hammond said your cuts would be "just over £1bn, £1.5bn, something like that".

Meanwhile your figures on savings from the cutting Child Tax Credits and the Child Trust Fund have been exposed as inaccurate by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, leaving your spending pledges even more awry.

It is not clear to us whether these mixed messages are a deliberate attempt to obscure your plans or a symptom of a confused approach to policy but either way the public deserves better. Your party has put great store in its calls for openness and accountability in the management of the nations finances so you must match this with actions.

You have variously described your ‘first priority' as protecting NHS and overseas budgets as well as avoiding the rise in National Insurance Contributions. As this rise in contributions would raise around £7bn per year, you can only pledge to scrap it by identifying savings or other means to raise revenue. But as you have not done this, it is yet another example of a pledge that lacks credibility.

You have also promised to "reverse the effects on pension savers of the 1997 abolition of the dividend tax credit for pension funds". You must be aware that this has huge cost implications. For example, Martin Palmer, head of corporate pensions marketing at Friends Provident has estimated this promise alone "would cost the Treasury billions".

The list of uncosted pledges, backed up by suggestions of widespread cuts one day, or virtually no changes the next, leaves the public confused and sceptical. In short, your recent record is a catalogue of contradictions.

Despite this confused approach, we accept that one area where you have been clear is on your plans to scrap support for those who find themselves out of work: the Future Jobs Fund, which provides 120,000 jobs for young people, the Young Person's Guarantee of work or training so no young person is on the dole for over a year and the New Deal for lone parents which has helped over 625,000 move into work.

So even though you are giving out mixed and contradictory signals on important details of policy, it is clear that protecting employment is not a priority for you. It is therefore unsurprising that independent economists, such as Professor David Blanchflower, have estimated that under your plans unemployment could reach 5 million.

Whatever our party political differences, as we get closer to the election we believe that we all owe it to the public to present them with a fair and honest choice. The public should be told what your priorities really are and how they are to be paid for. Any party that seriously aspires to Government should do no less.

Paul Boateng
Alan Milburn
Andrew Smith

 

 

 

Photo: David McLear 2009

Paul Boateng, Alan Milburn and Andrew Smith are former chief secretaries to the treasury

19 Mar 2010 22:02

 

Comments

• Posted by Little Angussie on 19 March 2010, 10:43:46 PM We have had 13 years of theft and sleeze from you lot so dont take any moral high ground about something you know nothing about. We know eff-all about Labour's policies and costings yet so dont you dare make assumptions of Conservative policies. You are running scared and trying your usual New labour scare stories. Can you not understand that the public are heartily sick of ALL of this corrupt Labour government led by an unelected and unwanted and incapable Gordon Brown
• Posted by Paul on 20 March 2010, 10:47:14 AM "we all owe it to the public to present them with a fair and honest choice" This from ex-members of the most dishonest, incompetent government known to the UK, with Brown trying to say he'd carry on spending er investing rather than tightening the belt? I realise Labour are skilled at hypocrisy, but surely there's a limit? Apparently not...
• Posted by Kath on 20 March 2010, 5:09:49 PM Hang on - i thought labour had promised to half the deficit (currently 180bn odd) in 4 years.... while ringfencing schools, health, and other areas... The govt lot are very keen to say what they won't cut, but can't say where they would find that 90bn. i dread to think of the furious rows in the cabinet when they actually have to make their minds up instead of acting like they're on some moral high ground.
• Posted by William Blakes Ghost on 20 March 2010, 5:53:31 PM Before they go asking any other party about what their policy perhaps these Labour muppets might like to tell us what their economic position is this week? Now let me see is there R in the day because if there is it probably means that Labour are promising no tax rises. Of course if there isn't they are probably promising tax rises. AND of course we can't forget that old chestnut investment vs cuts. Perhaps Labour will finally make up their mind and decide on 'investment in cuts' as their approach. All in all this letter and the rest of what Labour espouse these days is best summed up by their slogan 'A Futile Fart For All' In other words just more pointless stinking putrid noxious gases......
• Posted by d.mcardle on 21 March 2010, 5:01:49 PM no no WBG ,it's A FAIRER FUTURE FOR ALL ,you must have misunderstood ! silly man ,it's about democracy,you see . All those words above...'theft and sleaze' 'dishonest' 'incompetent' 'muppets' are as I mentioned elsewhere really more applicable to high end remorselessley greedy capitalism. But perhaps you have been drinking or something and that's why you turned so nasty at the end.I mean ,one can't really argue with being fair to people ,can you ?