Cameron: I will never sanction a Budget that singles out the working poor for a tax rise

There were no big news headlines from David Cameron's interview on Andrew Marr this morning but here were the party leader's key messages:

• People on low incomes no longer feel that Labour is on their side.  The Conservatives say to those people that we'll keep your taxes down, we'll reform the benefits system so that couples aren't penalised for staying together and we'll give you a choice of a better school.  Cameron promised to never sanction a Budget that singles out the working poor for a tax rise.
• Conservatives have taken tough decisions.  There'll be no up front, unfunded tax cuts.  Francis Maude is looking for ways of cutting waste.  We'll cut the cost of politics and stop various perks that MPs enjoy.
• We won't talk down the economy, we won't predict recession.  There are many good fundamentals underlying the economy but over the course of an economic cycle we'll bring fiscal policy under control.
• Britain urgently needs to understand if it has enough storage or a robust enough infrastructure to ensure our supplies of oil, electricity, gas and water supply.  There must be a danger that the problems we've seen associated with industrial action in Grangemouth would be much worse if a terrorist group targeted our infrastructure.

Interviewed after David Cameron was Foreign Secretary David Miliband.  It was a very strong performance.  Mr Miliband appeared fresh and engaging - such a contrast with the PM's endless talk of long-term challenges.  If Brown's problems mount the Labour Party will be sorely tempted to choose Mr Miliband as the leader to save their seats.

10.20am: One of the best features of PoliticsHome is its through-the-day records of interviews that politicians give on radio and TV.  For highlights of Cameron and Miliband go to PoliticsHome. 

Comments

[Alan S]

I can't remember anything Cameron said. He is so dull.

[James Maskell]

Given his adjusting of position after making clear pledges, I dont trust Cameron not to sanction such a Budget. He wont even come up with an idea of how to deal with the current situation regarding the 10p rate. At present the policy is to be angry about it but to have no policy? Labour is right to point out that the Tories are more than happy to give upfront tax cuts for those with shares or those who might be impacted upon by IHT but will not pledge anything like that for the working poor.

The Tories may not be pledging upfront uncosted tax cuts but by God they're pledging plenty of upfront spending increases...

As for the economy, if he says he wont talk down the economy, then why has he been doing just that in going for Browns over his handling of it? You cant criticise the state of the economy without going for Brown and you cant go for Browns weaknesses without having to talk about the state of the economy.

One of the main causes of global warming/climate change is the CO2 that we produce when we breathe. Perhaps Cameron should bear that in mind when he talks such guff.

[bluepatriot]

I agree it was a dull interview but the more Cameron is on the TV the better. His reasonableness wins us support amongst swing voters who want our party to be in the centre ground.

[voreas]

I didn't see Milliband, but Cameron like Osbourne needed to answer Marr's question about where is the money going to come from for tax cuts or reduced borrowing. Clearly Marr is hostile to the Conservatives and is trying to trap Cameron into giving figures he will then try an portray as bogus(Marr will fail as nobody believes government figures are remotely credible) but I see absolutely no reason why he doesn't mention: scrapping ID cards (£15bn?), scrapping whitehall communication consultants (£1bn) and looking into rationalising endless IT projects(£bn+++). If he is feeling brave he might aspire to increase homeworking and look into performance related pay.

[James maskell]

Surely most of the money going towards ID Cards is going on capital spending therefore 15 billion is probably rather a bit optimistic.

[Pete]

Cameron was poor on what he would do tomorrow about the 10p nonsense, and poor about where he would save money (i.e. cut government spending). (Naturally the fact that 80% of our legislation now comes from Brussels - and drives much of the spending - was not even alluded to.)

[Mark Hudson]

Absolutely pathetic, Dave. No coherent economic strategy or plan. However, thank you for confirming that you guys have no intention of reducing the bloated, inefficient, tax-devouring UK public sector. So what exactly IS the point of your Party?

[Oscar Miller]

I can't believe posters here thought David Cameron was poor on the AM show. I thought he was absolutely terrific - energised, authoratative, to the point, got over all the key messages but gave no hostages. He was superb. Miliband had the softest of soft interviews and came across as naive and immature. Likeable - yes - leadership material - no. Have trolls taken over here - or is it that fatal negative self-hating vein of Conservative that only wants to gripe?

[voreas]

James Maskell "Surely most of the money going towards ID Cards is going on capital spending therefore 15 billion is probably rather a bit optimistic."

the government estimates about £6bn The LSE estimates 3 times that amount. Even if the government is right (which is seriously doubtful) then how much would improving the military cost.

below is a bbc link about the cost.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4590817.stm

[voreas]

Oscar Miller "Have trolls taken over here" there are likely to be some trolls above, but I am not one of them. My point really is that Marr will always be hostile as he is Brown's pet reporter. Therefore I think Cameron needs to turn Marr's hostile questioning to his advantage and the best way to do it on cutting spending is to cut unpopular spending.

[Tony Makara]

"Britain urgently needs to understand if it has enough storage or a robust enough infrastructure to ensure our supplies of oil, electricity, gas and water supply"

This is a very important point and one that should extend to an ample supply of domestically produced foodstuffs. The more food we import the more the danger of inflation as our currency weakens. Russia and China are both currently planning to increase food production to supply their domestic market, we should be looking to do the same.

[Pete]

"This is a very important point and one that should extend to an ample supply of domestically produced foodstuffs."

Agreed, but we aren't even allowed to be self-sufficient in milk now. UK has about 80% of the milk quota it needs for own consumption, and the French about 120%.

[Not Dave]

So Dave is going to soak the rich? I want a pledge not to sanction a budget that will raise taxes for anyone. So how would a Cameron government be any different to one led by Milliband and/or Clegg?

Cameron has not modernised the Conservative Party. He is taking it back to the "noblesse oblige" paternalism and social democratic consensus of the 50s and 60s. Dave is the heir to MacMillan and Heath. It is time for the so-called Thatcherites in Conservative Way Forward to wake up and recognise that Cameron despises everything that they stand for. Too many are putting their careers before their declared principles. Dave is not "One of Us". Got it?

[Ephraim Gadsby]

Dave is the heir to MacMillan (sic) and Heath

In other words, he's leading the Conservative party back to the days when its leaders were decent people with a social conscience, who believed there was such a thing as society and who wouldn't trample over the poorest and weakest in pursuit of a harsh dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest ideology.

Well, hurrah for that! All the more reason to get behind him.

It is time for the so-called Thatcherites in Conservative Way Forward to wake up ... Dave is not "One of Us". Got it?

It's time for the so-called Thatcherites to realise that their dogma has lost three elections in a row and serious change is needed if the Tory party is ever to get back into power again. You've had your go, and much good it's done us. Get out of the way and let Cameron get on with it.

[Gwendolyn]

I am quite happy for Cameron to be the heir to MacMillan at least, since I seem to remember that as a time when we never had it so good. My impression of the interview today was that he was playing the soft pedal countering some of the criticism in the press that he was becoming too aggressive. I think he is great either way. I could see right through Milliband, watch his calculating eyes, he was there simply to rubbish Cameron - and the interesting thing was that Marr seemed to be afraid of him. Just a thought, looking at the picture, does Milliband wear a wig?

[Not Dave]

At least Mr Gadsby is honest.

Heath's 25% inflation wiped out my father's savings. We shivered during the power cuts that were a feature of the three-day week. Heath was a social and economic vandal.

Under Mrs Thatcher, we prospered. She won three elections in a row, defeated the unions and the Argies and put pride back in our nation.

Thatcher did not lose an election - Major, Hague and Howard did. Only Hague could be described as a Thatcherite. If Brown had not bottled it last autumn, Cameron would have been added to that list.

[Tony Makara]

David Cameron is doing a great job as leader and whats more he has delivered, the party is now preparing for government. We need a prime minister who is pragmatic and not given to chasing ideology. David Cameron has shown that he won't stick to a plan of action if it isn't working, he will carry that attitude into number ten. We may not agree with everything that comes from team Cameron, but the most important this is putting together a package of initiatives that will work. What is the point of making populist promises that cannot be implemented once in office? Instead David Cameron is promising what can be delivered, and for once we will have an honest government that keeps its promises.

[Concerned Tory]

Did Cameron pledge to no indirect tax increases?

That's going to make his pledges on green taxation rather tough...

[Paul]

The fact of the matter is this: Labour cannot tell us what they are going to do later THIS YEAR. Cameron is being lambasted by the BBC for not declaring specific taxation policy 2 years into the future.

We have another 18-24 months of Labour misrule before Cameron and Osborne have to clear up the mess. It'll be during the next parliament that the first of the PFI buildings need major maintenance or even rebuilding. That will be a futher burden that will be the inherited legacy.

[JohnfromCamberley]

Naturally, I didn’t watch the Marr show. I have better things to do at that time on a Sunday morning. But I did pick up on a little gem by Miliband in his interview. Quoting from the transcript, now up on the BBC website: “…..our prime minister has done more for the low paid than any other chancellor since Lloyd George. This is a record.”

When (oh when, oh when!) will this man learn a little history? It is all to easy to forget the huge advances that were made from the mid-twenties to the immediate run-up to the second world war (in other words, in the post-Lloyd George era) in improving the living conditions of the working man, which is not to offer Miliband a scintilla of an excuse. The man in the vanguard of these reforms was Neville Chamberlain. I could give you a long list of the acts that he sponsored, but these are a few of the things that he led: slum clearance, rent control, closure of the workhouses, paid holidays, health and safety at work. Brown’s record is trivial and minute (and declining by the minute) by comparison – it is impossible to argue otherwise.

Miliband undoubtedly believes himself to have some claim to the status of a statesman, but by his pathetically glib and ignorant performance this morning, he clearly has an awful long way to go.

[Alex Swanson]

In other words, he's leading the Conservative party back to the days when its leaders were decent people with a social conscience

"social conscience" by your definition - failures by any proper standard, who simply swallowed fashionable socialist ideas and carried them out under a Conservative banner. That post-war consensus has the appalling results we all know about and which had to be at least partly fixed by the Margaret Thatcher you so dislike.

The party didn't lose the last three elections because of right wing ideas, it lost it precisely because it came under the control of people who rejected those ideas and in consequence had no substantial alternative to offer.

[Oberon Houston]

Cameron has done exactly the same thing when questioned by Marr on taxation, even though we all knew the taxation and services cut line would come from Marr, He's used it relentlessly - and we seem to keep getting tangled up answering it, for f*** sake, its easy! Here is what I wrote after Osborne got it wrong on that same show... Camerons team obviously didn't bother to prepare for the obvious, very annoyed.... HERE IT IS AGAIN..

MARR:
So you want to cut taxes, how would you pay for that?

----
CURRENT LINE:
Shadow Chancellor (NOW CAMERON TOO):
Um, well I can't say that just now so far away from an election. Um um.

Interviewer:
So people just have to trust you do they?
-----

MY LINE:

Look, the tax system and public finances are complex and cannot be transformed overnight. The Labour Government inherrited a strong economy and have benefited from fantastic global growth (which was nothing to do with them), however now that they cannot shelter behind a global boom, the wheels are coming off. This is because of their high taxation and poor public service policies across the board.

It will take many years of work to fix that. However, over time, we will reduce taxation for ordinary people, but crucially, by running the country better can we do that without harming public services. It's called sharing the proceeds of growth. We have made this position very clear for a long time now, indeed Gordon Brown has attacked it, showing the clear difference between us and Labour.

This is the way it is, our whole manifesto is integrated into that aim;

- Better policies will mean better public services
- Better public finances mean more value for each tax £
- A well run country (services) means GDP growth and lower taxation, which is self sustaining.
- In that f***ing order - Marr -
- Get it?

This is something Labour, Gordon Brown, and you MARR seem to be saying is not possible. We believe it is.
----

For good measure you can reel off the Labour Government version:

- Terrible policies (where there are any above spin and maneuvering)
- Poor public services
- Increase taxation
- Plough more money in to prop things up
- Push up debt
- Increase taxation
- More taxation, less growth
- Strikes, recession, debt mountain, chaos

[Ephraim Gadsby]

The party didn't lose the last three elections because of right wing ideas, it lost it precisely because it came under the control of people who rejected those ideas and in consequence had no substantial alternative to offer.

What a load of nonsense. Who were these people who gained "control" of the party? You think William Hague, IDS and Michael Howard rejected right wing ideas between 1997 and 2005?

I don't hold the leaders wholly responsible for those election defeats though - on the whole they did their best to keep things together while the right wing diehards shot their mouths off, especially about Europe, and generally made the Tories look ill-disciplined as well as nasty.

Finally - finally - the penny has dropped, and the leadership is steering the party back to traditional compassionate conservatism, the tradition of Heath, Macmillan, Butler - and indeed Chamberlain.

But still some extremists on the right won't lie down and be quiet. They still have the potential to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They are the Tory equivalent of Labour's militant tendency in the mid-80s, and Cameron I hope will disabuse them as publicly and unambiguously as Kinnock did. If he grasps that nettle, and I think he will, his path to Number 10 will be assured.

[Mike Routhorn]

Tell me, all of you who are expecting policy specifics regarding the economy, do you know what the state of the country is going to be in 2010? Me neither.

Why on earth would Cameron and Osborne want to announce something NOW that may be totally inappropriate in 2010?

In addition, anything Labour could pinch they would and any suggestion of cutting government waste would immediately be seized upon as an 'attack on vital services and the vulnerable'.

Interesting that the number of trolls seems to be growing. You must be getting desperate.

[Alex Swanson]

You think William Hague, IDS and Michael Howard rejected right wing ideas between 1997 and 2005?

I think they were surrounded by men who wouldn't accept radical change, partly because of their own ideologies, partly because they lacked the courage to put forward ideas against what they knew would be an ongoing firestorm of abuse from the left-wing media, and partly because they were more interested in their own power than doing the right thing. That's why they got rid of IDS - precisely because he might have suggested something radical.

And let's focus on the actual facts. Major certainly didn't lose in 1997 because he was right-wing, because he wasn't. Hague fought 2001 on Europe precisely because polls showed Conservative euro-scepticism was popular, and lost it because other, tamer, policies didn't convince. And Howard quite simply (a) didn't put forward any radical policies either, and (b) fought a rubbish campaign from the moment he became leader. This last isn't even hindsight. I had a letter published in the Telegraph in the autumn of 2004 pointing out how stupidly he was behaving.

Face it: the idea that the last three elections were lost because the Conservative Party was too right-wing just doesn't stand up to examination.

[Alex Swanson]

anything Labour could pinch they would

Good, it would benefit the country and the Conservatives would have one more example they could point to of being ahead of them.

and any suggestion of cutting government waste would immediately be seized upon as an 'attack on vital services and the vulnerable'.

Yes, of course. That's precisely why work should start now on making the arguments. How long did it take for it to be accepted that there were problems with excess immigration?

The idea that you shouldn't argue for the right policy simply because you will then be attacked and misrepresented is cowardice. It's stupid as well. Don't you realise that it actually doesn't matter whether the Conservatives say this or not, you'll be attacked for it just the same? All you're doing is refusing to answer back. No wonder you lose.

[David Sergeant]

"Face it: the idea that the last three elections were lost because the Conservative Party was too right-wing just doesn't stand up to examination."

Posted by: Alex Swanson | April 27, 2008 at 16:30

Alex Swanson, I have read your ramblings with mounting incredulity. Just to start, Labour won its three elections because they said they would spend lots of money on public services and the Tories wouldn't. End of story. People like you frighten me, you are talking the sort of rubbish that got the Tories hated until Cameron came along, and the more voters think your views represent the views of a substantial proportion of the Conservative party the more they will vote Labour. Please come down to earth from planet Zog.

[David Sergeant]

"All you're doing is refusing to answer back."
Posted by: Alex Swanson | April 27, 2008 at 16:35

O.K. I agree now!

[Oberon Houston]

Mike @ 16:24

We do need to talk about policy now, what we don't need is to get mixed up between long-term effects of competent govt. and the specifics of the 2010 Budget.

We need to move the conversation on from the false perception that tax cuts and spending cuts come together on Day 1. This is the lie Labour peddle. We need to get the message out that we are better at spending peoples money. Just like our councils across the land, where services are better, streets are cleaner and safer and council taxes are lower. On a national level we will run the country better and people will see the benefits of that in the services they receive and, as a result, the lower taxes they pay, which will actually stimulate growth. Get that argument out of the way and then it becomes a clear path to roll out policy.

At the moment we never get off the ground because biased political commentators, like Marr, egged on no doubt by his wife and father in law, know that if they can keep the narrative on tax cuts for the rich and spending cuts for the poor, then there is no need to take the discussion further. Every Labour MP, cabinet member, Darling, Brown, Marr, the lot, keep peddling this line.

[Mike Routhorn]

Alex Swanson, Labour and its media chums have done a pretty good job of ringfencing the government budget and closing down any kind of adult debate by using doctors, nurse, teachers and the genuinely disabled as human shields.

There will come a time when the government budget is discussed but it is not for you to demand when that should be.

That's the price you pay for using it as a mechanism to frighten people into voting Labour every time the subject has come up in the past.

[Yet Another Anon]

Labour won its three elections because they said they would spend lots of money on public services and the Tories wouldn't.
The Conservative Party lost in 1997 because the government had lost it's way, it had promised tax cuts and highlighted that in it's campaign and had delivered massive tax increases, John Major and Michael Hestletine had been heavily committed to monetary union and this had fallen apart and of course there was the disastrous 1993 Railways Act fragmenting the system followed by the privatisation of Railtrack, the bungled announcements over BSE and blatant dishonesty over the government's communications with the IRA. Then to top it off the General Election campaign ended up focused on Neil and Christine Hamilton being followed around by people dressed in animal costumes and the unease in his local constituency over his candidacy including the possibility that he might be challenged by Councillor Squirrel of Knutsford. All it needed next was a rabbit hole, a mad hatter and a looking glass and that would have completed the picture, in fact it's amazing with hindsight that it wasn't much worse in terms of the final result.

Then William Hague tried wearing baseball caps backwards, rather veered about on policy, there was a dispute with his Shadow Chancellor over possible public spending savings and in the final days he seemed to give up on campaigning and leave it to Margaret Thatcher who came out with "The Mummy Returns" line which showed she was a little out of touch with political campaigning and merely made William Hague appear unable to cope and reinforced Labour's campaigning which was intended to portray him as lacking ideas and only a sort of placeman to continue her legacy. The Conservatives total vote actually fell below what Labour got under Michael Foot in 1983 and only rose as a percentage because turnout fell so low.

IDS of course never got to fight a General Election, he actually pursued a principled but pragmatic line that developed policy based on firm principle to solve problems that the country faced, his removal and replacement by Michael Howard annoyed party members and emphasised divisions in the parliamentary party to the general public. Michael Howard then effectively abandoned most of the new policies that had been drawn up since the General Election, with the Liberal Democrat campaign seemingly wholly based on a casual critique of the War in Iraq and the Conservative campaign based on a few slogans and an immigration policy apparently invented at short notice by Michael Howard, the Labour Party then at it's weakest since 1983 was still able to win a majority by default.

People have heard promises over fiscal and monetary policies before and the numbers of times that a party has pledged never to do something, or pledged to do something and then only shortly after not fulfilled that promise sticks in the mind, not just the mind of those opposing that party, or floating voters, but even of those who are committed to supporting that party.

No one is going to believe any of the 3 main party leaders if they say they will never do a particular thing, people want concrete proposals - something that appears to have been formulated with the intention of introducing it at some point.

[Mike Routhorn]

Oberon I entirely agree with you but the problem we face is that the one crowning achievement of Labour rule has been that many millions of people are either fully or partially dependent upon a government cheque.

What we need is a stepped approach, something like in exchange for abolishing x Quangos the starting rate for income tax is now £10,000. In conjunction there could be a vast simplification of the tax credits system.

That way people would see that they can have more money in their pockets without their local hospital closing.

[Christina Speight]

Cameron and the party have done well in their demolition of Brown and the polls show that the Labour party is in dire trouble. But I - for one - fail to detect any overall theme, any overarching message, any dream , that makes me keen to vote for the Tories. I might do so merely because my priority is the negative one of ridding us of New Labour and Brown in particular (and his favourite Ed Balls!).

A somewhat downbeat view I know but one widely held.

Cameron must HAVE a dream. Why doesn't he tell us what it is? I'm not willingly following a man who can't describe how things could get better under him as PM. AND there's still that elephant in the room. Brown's broken promise on a referendum and silence from Cameron on the subject. THAT omission might make me vote for anybody in a rage!

The man's useless - no vision.

[David Belchamber]

"AND there's still that elephant in the room. Brown's broken promise on a referendum and silence from Cameron on the subject. THAT omission might make me vote for anybody in a rage"!

The point you make, Christina at 17.46 is very valid but I hope that it will be remedied before an election, so that you aren't driven to voting for just anyone.

Now that the duplicitous Brown has denied us a referendum on the Lisbon treaty/constitution, I would like our next manifesto to promise to hold a referendum on whether we stay in the EU or not. This issue has got to be addressed, as the present situation is not satisfactory for several reasons.

The party winning a general election does not these days gain 50%+ of the electorate's votes, it is always far less, so a referendum would allow the nation to express its views on the matter and a conservative government should, on this issue, undertake to carry out the will of the people.

[Tony Makara]

"I would like our next manifesto to promise to hold a referendum on whether we stay in the EU or not"

David Belchamber, I second that proposal.

[Pete]

Me too. I really can't vote for Cameron while he tries to kid the electorate that 'Europe' is not an issue.

[David]

The historical and psephological blindness of the Thatcherite tendency is terrifying.

[Matthew]

My guess with the 'dream' thing is that Cameron is waiting until Labour are so destroyed that they cannot come back at us with the same old garbage, especially given that the electoral system favours Labour. Keep the faith - I get the feeling a distinct vision will come out in due course, when Labour are so down that they cannot just nick our policies! Cameron, lets face it, has exceeded all our expectations, and though not immune from criticism has bought himself a good wad of my good favour at least.

[Matthew]

PS Is it me or is Fraser Nelson actually Steven Gerrard?

[Deborah]

Oberon (15.28) makes a very good point.

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

It is interesting to observe the discussion between some of the One Nation Tories here, and the Thatcherites. What’s more amusing is the extremeism displayed by people on both sides. Some of the Thatcherites seem to think that 1979 is some sort of “year zero” in the history of our Party, and that Harold Macmillan was some sort of semi-socialist boogeyman.
Some of the One Nation Tories (like Ephraim Gadsby) hold the view that the Heath premiereship is something David Cameron should aspire to, due to the “social conscience” of Ted Heath.

[Ephraim Gadsby]

Some of the One Nation Tories (like Ephraim Gadsby) hold the view that the Heath premiereship is something David Cameron should aspire to

No, that's not really my point - I wouldn't say that Heath's premiership is something to aspire to, he made many mistakes. But in harking back to Heath, Macmillan, Butler and Chamberlain, my point is more about previous Tory generations' sense of social responsibility and public service, rather than the ugly selfish individualism which came later. I applaud David Cameron for moving away from that, I hope he's allowed to succeed.

[Yet Another Anon]

The party winning a general election does not these days gain 50%+ of the electorate's votes
Even in the 1940s and 1950s neither Labour nor Conservative quite hit 50% of those turning out to vote, no party since the 19th century has got more than half those eligible to vote - Labour came closest in 1951, and so far as hitting 50% of the Popular Vote Labour in 1945 and Conservative in 1955 and 1959 were only just short.

You have to go back to the 1930s to find any party getting over 50% of the vote, but then again in the 1970s and so far this century it seems to have been a struggle for any party to even crawl up to 40% of the Popular Vote.