"Tax the bankers more and spend the �2bn you raise on creating 110,000 jobs," the Eds say.
"They've already promised that they would spend �12bn they haven't got," replies George.
"That's balls," replies Balls (actually he said it was "totally utter garbage and claptrap").
"We'd cut VAT on fuel," say the Eds.
"But hold on, your government is responsible for increasing duty by 1% above inflation for the next four years," says George.
And so on and so on.
Forgive me for sounding weary after this morning's exchanges about the economy, but I am. This is, as someone once said, the narcissism of small differences. Or to put it less grandly, it is political positioning by both the opposition and the government about small measures and relatively small sums of money ahead of the Budget.
My weariness stems from having reported a similar argument about �6bn in cuts, before an election which would produce the biggest spending cuts since World War II whichever party was elected. It is the equivalent of a row about a fiver dropped on the floor when you are having your house repossessed.
I am not, however, arguing that there is no difference between the parties and the deficit. There is and it's a big one. But oddly, it suits all involved not to highlight it clearly.
Labour do believe that the government is cutting too far and too fast. What's more Ed Balls believes that his own government was planning to cut too far and too fast. Today he hinted that he would have revised Alastair Darling's plans for spending cuts this year.
He repeatedly pointed out that the Treasury had �20bn more to play with than it expected, thanks to unemployment being lower last year than feared, and the fact that budget plans are always re-written in response to new economic data.
However, he did not and will not spell out what he would have done with that money. Not just because he hasn't "got all the figures" but because like all canny opposition politicians he wants the debate to focus on the government's plan and not his.
The Treasury don't want to have a debate about "Plan B", or what to do about, say, the collapse in construction jobs for young men - a problem I know they are discussing behind the scenes. That's because they, in turn, want the political to-and-fro to focus not on their proposals but on Labour's credibility.
And that is how you end up with today's not entirely illuminating exchanges.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2011/03/nick.html
love processor politic politic crack processor soft crack politic enter stuff politic crack politic processor
No comments:
Post a Comment