The Finkonomist responds...

Iain Dale has responded to my post on Cameron's speech on tax and spend with a mixture of good and bad points.

Let's take a look.

His first point comes in reply to my assertion that George Osborne's promise to match Labour's spending was produced for an early election and was therefore effectively redundant. Iain says:

Er, come again? The pledge was made way in advance of last year's phantom election and so far as I know was meant to relate to the first two years of a Conservative government whenever it is elected. If Danny is saying that pledge is now irrelevant, I say hear hear.

This isn't quite right, Iain. To start with the pledge was not made "way in advance" of the phantom election. It was made on September 3rd 2007 in a piece I commissioned and published in The Times and which was written very much with the coming campaign in mind.

And it did not apply to the first two years of any Conservative Government. It applied to the two years of spending (2008-9, 2009-10) currently on the table, with the third year 2010-11 to be reviewed next year.

So this part of Iain's post is, I am afraid, simply wrong.

The next part of his post is more interesting. It concerns my assertion that:

The purpose of reform and reducing demand for government services is not tax reduction - that is a (welcome and necessary) by product. The purpose is to change the relationship between citizens and the state, to build a stronger society and to improve the quality of things like health and education.

This according to Iain is:

Straight out of the Social Democratic Hymnbook. The purpose of reform and reducing the demand for government services is to shrink the state, make it more efficient and cut the amount of money the State takes off its citizens. It is the stronger society and improved quality of public services which are the by-product.

Why don't we sue for peace on this.

I can't believe Iain really thinks that something abstract (shrinking the state) is a more important than something concrete (improved schools). Try selling that as a message. On the other hand, I can see that leaving people with more of their own money is an important objective. It's more than just a by-product.

There are two more points.

I spoke of putting spending on a new path. And this leads Iain to explode:

Put state spending on a new path? Do me a favour. Translated, that ought to mean 'cut public spending'.

Again, I am afraid that won't do. Iain is normally admirably precise, but not here. No Government is going to cut public spending. And, Iain, you aren't actually in favour of them doing so. Trust me.

A Tory Government should, however, reduce the trend rate of growth of public spending below the trend rate of growth rate of the economy.

Then, finally, there is this:

If a Tory government cannot achieve a lower level of taxation after a five year term, then one has to ask what it is there for?

Well, the Thatcher government didn't cut tax rates in its first term. Do you, therefore, wonder what it was there for, Iain?

Reducing the whole of the Tory idea to tax cuts is risible.

Comments

[Simon]

Well said. Cant take him seriously since the David Davis collapse. God knows if he really believes that simplistic stuff.

[Steve]

A really good article that neatly sums up my fears for a Conservative administration.

Having voted Labour sine 1997 I am now seriously considering voting Conservative, but which Conservative Party am I voting for, and vastly more importantly, which Conservative Party do we get if (when) they win?

If it’s a right of centre ‘one nation’ Conservative Party that aims to tackle government waste, while increasing personal opportunity then all well and good. But if it’s a ‘John Redwood would have made a great PM’ kind of party then count me out.

[Dave B]

"If a Tory government cannot achieve a lower level of taxation after a five year term, then one has to ask what it is there for?"

He's right about that, and from Mr Cameron's recent Spectator interview, and yesterday's speech my impression is that he wants to stand for re-election with a record of having cut taxes to sell.

" The purpose is to change the relationship between citizens and the state, to build a stronger society and to improve the quality of things like health and education."

I was talking to someone over the weekend, and ending up suggesting that the Conservatives want to turn the clock back and redesign the Welfare State the way it should have been done to support the institutions we used to have, before the state killed them off.

(The Welfare State we're in is very good on this.)
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Welfare-State-Were-James-Bartholomew/dp/1842751611/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211298251&sr=1-1

If they succeed, I think the Cameron government may well go down as one of the most important of the past 100 years. Here's hoping.