Forget tax cuts, says Fox

This morning's headline news concerns well-sourced speculation that Labour is likely to rewrite its fiscal rules.  The increasingly sick public finances are forcing Labour to consider much greater borrowing.  The Tory reaction to all of this is to don the hair shirts.  On Tuesday David Cameron warned that he might have to increase taxes.  The leading member of the Right within the shadow cabinet, Liam Fox, is giving Associations the same message.  This is what Dr Fox told Ealing and Acton Tories earlier this week:

"If your hanging your boots on thinking we can offer tax cuts if we win, then you can forget it... The fact is, the finances will be a lot worse than people think, just as it was in 1979, they're always worse than they [Labour] say; back then it was four years before anything could be done, and this, again, is the situation that we will need to deal with when we win."

Dr Fox confirmed those words to ConservativeHome yesterday.  He said that he knew of a number of "unpaid bills" in his own area of responsibility, defence, and that national security must come before tax cuts.  He gave a similar message to the FT last month.

But just when you thought that tax cuts weren't on the agenda, along comes Nick Clegg with his promise to cut the overall burden of taxation.  A leader in The Times questions the sketchiness of the LibDem leader's plans but welcomes his attempt to shift the political debate.  Telegraph commentators Iain Dale and Janet Daley both welcome Mr Clegg's intervention:

• Iain Dale in today's Telegraph: "He hasn't just pledged a reduction in taxes; he has promised a cut in public spending, too. Admittedly, it is only £20 billion, a mere three per cent of total government spending, but it's a start. And it's a damn sight more than any other politician has had the guts to do."
• Janet Daley yesterday on The Telegraph blog: "Mr Clegg has spoken the words which no Tory frontbencher will dare to utter: the poor are paying too much tax (far more in proportion to their income than the rich), and the Government is spending too much money."

We're not so ready to applaud Mr Clegg.  As we argued on Wednesday, Nick Clegg's social policies mean that he'll do little to reduce the long-term demands on the state.  He doesn't have credibility.  Conservatives MUST realise, however, that the public mood has shifted on tax.  Just as every household is tightening its belts the Conservatives must put an end to the public spending supertanker and say that we will not continue to match Labour's spending plans.  As soon as we break free from Labour's spending plans we force the much-needed war on waste and begin to create space to reduce borrowing and introduce some economy-boosting tax relief.  We set out our other four tax'n'spending recommendations last month.

Comments

[Mark Hudson]

Your comments are very well judged. Regardless of income level, there has been a sea change in public opinion on tax, as people feel vastly overburdened and sense that that which is currently taken in tax is spent injudiciously.

If the Conservative Party does not expressly commit itself to reducing public spending by a material amount and support cuts in personal income tax and business tax, then many traditional and leaning Conservative voters will undoubtedly stay at home.

[Alan S]

Liam is creeping ahead of the reshuffle.

Doesn't he appreciate the scale of waste in Brown's public sector?

[Sammy Finn]

Now that they are changing their fiscal rules I wouldn't be surprised if Labour offers some tax cuts too. We could end up being the high tax party!!!

[Edward Huxley]

Words fail me- well almost. If Mr. Fox is not aware of the massive waste of taxpayers` money exposed by the TPA, we might as well give up now.

There are huge areas where cuts can be made - you know it, I know it, everybody knows it, except those on the Conservative front bench apparently. One thing is certain, the threat of even more taxation is a vote loser.

[Nuala]

This is an interesting proposition from Mr Clegg, one I feel that natural Conservatives like me will have to examine closely given the lack of leadership on this issue from our own party. If only Sir Malcolm had done better in the last leadership election, I feel we would not be tacking towrards the squishy centre in the rapid fashion tht we now are.

[Stewart Geddes]

Liam Fox is right. We are the party of low taxation, but first and foremost we are the party that recognises that the government only has as much money as can be raised in taxation as such money has to be spent wisely.

It is a historical fact that the Labour party always runs out of money leaving all sorts of problems for the conservatives (because it is always us) to sort out.

Eventually we will cut taxes, but in the short term, we will inherit the mother and father of all financial messes.

[Graeme Pirie]

So we can "Forget tax cuts" can we?

The Tories need to stop being so cocky, yes the UK's in a mess, but Brown now spends double what they did 10 years ago - with no improvement. An extra £1000 BILLION above inflation. If the Tories can't lop off £100 Billion a year and give us significant tax cuts then they can "Forget my Vote".

A huge part of the polls are "anti-labour", not "pro-tories" - they need to remember that.

I've always voted tory, but at the next election I'm voting for whoever says:

- Small Government
- Restored individual privacy
- Slash regulation
- Slash spending
- Slash taxes

[Richard]

Can we all please forget about Nick Clegg and his tax announcements. It is clear that no thought what so ever had gone into this before it was announced yesterday and when questioned as to where he would make savingings he actually quoted things like a bolishing tax relief on pensions etc - all tax rises not cuts! Plus the Lib Dems are never going to be in power so it doesn't matter what they say.

What is more worrying is the Conservative position and that is where we should be focusing our attention. The Conservative Party need to go away and work out a very detailed plan of what publicly acceptable cuts he can make and then put that to the country. By that I mean cutting the pen pushers in the NHS, cutting red tape for the police, armed forces etc

With costed tax cuts as a result of publicly acceptable savings we would be in a very strong position.

[Oberon Houston]

He just means in the first budget. Of course there will be an effort to reduce waste and taxation, but it will take some time to just stabilise things and whilst we are doing that we can conduct deep investigations into expenditure, impact assessments on cost reduction and close down/wrap up projects and initiatives etc.

Lets not start frothing at the mouth, we are all on the same side here.

[Letters From A Tory]

Lots of people seem to have forgotten that public spending cuts = job losses, and the Conservatives would be foolish to commit themselves to slashing spending and causes job losses when the economy could be even worse in two years than it is now.

[Dale]

I never had a problem with not getting tax cuts. My problem was that we pledged to match labour's spending plans and that we weren't making the idealogical argument for tax cuts.

It is possible to say that you wan't to see, over time, an overall reduction in public spending without pledging unfunded tax cuts.

[Pooter]

The Labourites, as they always do, have squandered our money and left us deep in the fiscal fertilizer. The incompetence is breathtaking, and people seem to have become inured to it. The £1.5 bn tax-credit loss merited an inch-and-a-half on page 4 of Tuesday’s Times; folk shrug when they hear of billions wasted on consultants and laugh sardonically when told of the armies of people employed doing pointless jobs at our expense.

Mrs T was mocked for her talk of controlling the household purse, but her instincts were right: just as I have to ask “Can our family afford this?”, so someone needs to say “Can we justify spending public money on that.”

[johnC]

Liam Fox should spend a week with Hammersmith and Fulham Council to learn how to cut taxes and improve public services simultaneously.

[john parkes]

Labour is fast manoeuvering the country into the predictable financial mess it unfailingly bequeaths to the Conservative Party before any General Election when change is likely to come about. Thank heaven that George Osborne has not already taken the unwise step of promising tax cuts, before examining the books; which will not be open to him until he becomes Chancellor. In the meantime, the intemperate calls for `slash this` and `slash that` which appear to be made on the basis of gut feeling, translated into political dogma, will be of no immediate benefit to the country or its economy.
Cameron has already said we are a low tax Party. Let that stand as a principle until Osborne can discover when it can be put into practice. Until then, any more financially/economically ignorant hazards at political suicide had better be suspended for the time being!

[Alan S]

Well said johnC, Hammersmith, Wandsworth and Westminster prove that good councils cut taxes AND protect essential services AND keep winning elections.

[Libertarian]

How quick we are to forget Howe's austerity budget of 1981. It was painful, and it involved tax rises, but by balancing the books (with a little help from privatisation), Howe and Thatcher laid the groundwork for the glorious frenzy of deregulation, privatisation and tax-cutting that followed.

Clegg is to be admired for his move on tax, but Cameron has a job to do. Prudence comes before ideology. That is why we are Conservatives, is it not?

[John Peel]

Have I missed the conservativehome report on this week's Conservative Economic Summit?

[RichardJ]

"There are huge areas where cuts can be made - you know it, I know it, everybody knows it, except those on the Conservative front bench apparently."

I'm sure they do know it, it's just that controlling waste may be easier said than done. I hope I'm wrong though.

"Prudence comes before ideology. That is why we are Conservatives, is it not?"

I was under the impression Libertarians always demanded that budgets be balanced by spending cuts, never tax rises.

The fact is that people are finding it increasingly difficult to pay off mortgages and to pay for food and fuel. Increasing taxes would be madness - it would financially cripple many people.

[Sally Roberts]

JohnC and AlanS - I agree with you 100% and as a resident of Hammersmith & Fulham I am delighted to see my Council Tax bills come down and services improve!
I believe we can cut taxes when in Government - we just have to be clever as to how we do it!

[Gordon's Missing Bottle]

Apart from those targeted tax cuts that stimulate growth, the priority must be to tackle the staggering debt. Even clawing back the waste won't happen overnight and is frustrated by the uncosted final-salary pension schemes in the public sector. Sure, tax will come down long-term over a Conservative government, but it would be wrong -- and politically suicidal -- to promise when Labour's scorched earth policies have 2 years left to run and there's no electoral imperative.

[Mark Fulford]

I’ve argued here before that there’s no need to promise tax cuts where you’re convinced you can be more efficient. Who’s going to complain when, because of your better management, there’s an efficiency dividend to share?

The public mood on tax may be shifting but there’s still nothing to be gained from banging on about efficiency. However, the change in mood may signal that the public is ready to accept service cuts. If this is the case, we should treat it as a golden opportunity to reduce the size of government. There are whole departments that could go. The DTI and all its BusinessLink relations, for example. The idea that government taxes business in order to then help them is laughable. Most need government “help” like a hole in the head. Which other departments and quangos should go on the list that Conservatives would axe in real "service cuts"?

[johnC]

Time to debunk this myth about tax rises in the early Thatcher years. It is true that in 1979 VAT rose from 8% to 15%, but this was offset by a reduction in the standard rate of income tax, an increase in tax thresholds and a very substantial cut in the higher rate of tax. There was a net shift from direct to indirect taxes, but from the start Mrs Thatcher's government kept its pledge to reduce the rate of income tax across the board.

[Editor]

There are links to reports on the homepage, John Peel.

[Anne Allan]

Isn't it time the Conservatives started publishing some figures to demonstrate the public finance mess? Liam Fox says he aware of "unpaid bills": well then, publish them so that the public can make some informed decisions on the tax debate. All Shadow ministers should do the same - highlight the dire financial situation in the departments for which they supposedly have some knowledge. They should keep themselves informed in these matters, and if they do not, they are lackadaisical in allowing the government to keep them in the dark and are not up to the job.
The problem with the Tory top brass is that they do seem to be unaware of just how disproportionately the lower paid are affected by taxes. This only re-inforces the "Tory Toff" image.
A promise to raise the basic allowance would release millions from the tax trap. Unlike fiddling about with business taxes, this change is easily understood and immediate in its effect. It makes it worthwhile for many of the unemployed to go back to work and increases the social pressure on the backsliders. Additionally, it would bring onside many in the the lower levels of public service jobs, who, at the moment believe a Conservative victory would obliterate many of their jobs and therefore understandably plump for continuing to be members of the Labour-voting client state.

[Dale]

God help me, I'm agreeing wih mark fulford, the only person I've ever heard say his political hero is Michael Heseltine!

[Dorian Grape the Mild Mannered Toff]

Once upon a time in the dim recesses of our industrial past, the 1990s, the private sector was busily flattening out organisational structures. Why did we need a pyramid of job titles when we could squash down to need and necessity and deliver a lean and effective business structure? Just how many grades of civil servant do we currently have? How much over-management and duplication?

To echo the call for a radical audit of the public sector the opportunity to claw back out tax£ AND deliver more effective public services is a win, win, winning winner. Then, Liam, we would have the spare fat to reduce the current grotesque level of taxation.

Forget the cosmetic surgery. Liposuction for the public sector!

[Phil C]

The problem is that the govt now looks likely to borrow to fix holes in its revenue - through "fixing" the 10p tax debacle, postponing the fuel escalator, drops in fuel duty, stamp duty and VAT receipts due to the economic downturn. So it would be stupid to offer tax cuts when an incoming Tory government would be faced with unsustainably high govt expenditure plus a high public sector debt and hence bill for servicing that debt.

In addition, voters will be rightly sceptical about vague offers to "cut waste" as the ability of public sector managers to p*** money up against the wall is legendary. Cutting waste will end up with cutting services because the manageers will make sure they continue to feather their own nests.

What is needed is a costed, specific, list of things that can be done at no cost to the taxpayer in terms of services. A few examples are

Cut back on the whole machinery of state. I can see no need for a Department of Culture, Media and Sport. Abolish it, put nothing in its place, make the civil servants redundant. Emasculate DFID and merge it into the Foreign Office. Conduct an agressive tax simplification programme, making taxation less costly to collect (eg merge NI and income tax). Give Civil Servants an incentive to underspend their budgets each year. Roll back some of the recent equalities legislation, particularly the one about "schemes of equality" which has created a whole cottage industry.

[Oberon Houston]

Alan Clark once said of Heseltine: "The problem with Michael is that he had to buy his own furniture."

Brilliant!

[Umbrella man]

Targeted tax cuts are an essential weapon to stimulate the economy.

[Malcolm Dunn]

The Times labelled Clegg's sketchy spending plans as 'ridiculous' although they did appreciate his attempt to open up the debate. Although I'm very sceptical about his plans we should press him, hard, in case he does have any sensible ideas to slow the growth of State spending.
I think Fox is probably right and very much appreciate his honesty. We should oly make promises we KNOW we can keep and it is likely that an incoming Conservative government will be met as in 1979 with some very nasty suprises.
I would hope though that Osborne and his colleagues will have drawn up a list of savings that need to be made in the early days of a Consevative goernment.

[Jane Gould]

Yes - of course there are areas where huge tax cuts can be made. however everything we promise to do AND ACTUALLY DO must be considered within the context of social responsibility.
We cannot slash public sector pretend jobs at a stroke. The smoking five a day cessation empowerment respect officers et al will be part of our inheritance.
in a shrinking economy, we would be seen to be responsible for massive unemployment figures.
As in 1979, we will inherit an economy with high and rising unemployment - it's happening now - so it would be irresponsible to pursue a monolithic policy of tax cuts. We need to remember our recent history and recognise the sort of country we live in today.

[john parkes]

While Dorian Grape has got a point, he might remember that since 1997 Labour has increased the size of the Civil Service by getting on for 1 million people. Who does he imagine they and their families will vote for at the next General Election? Will it be for the Party promising liposuction for the public sector? Possibly not! However this will happen but most likely by natural the wastage brought about by the expiry of contracts of employment, death and all the other factos that reduce numbers. Otherwise if we go to the polling booths armed with scythes and axes, guess who will win next time.

[Saltmaker]

Time to debunk this myth about tax rises in the early Thatcher years.

Except, of course, Tax Freedom Day moved from 29 May to 20 June in the early Thatcher years. In fact TFD didn't get back to May until 1992. Throughout the entire Thatcher government, TFD was later than when she began.

Like Cameron will, Thatcher inherited an economy from a government that put its political fortunes above sound economics. Her tax rises weren’t wrong and, if he has no option, nor will Cameron’s be. To match Margaret Thatcher’s record he’ll have about 18 tax days in hand.

[Graeme Pirie]

Given the HUGE increase in spending and taxation, the tories are reading the electorate wrongly. We want lower taxes, lower spending and better services with none of the highly expensive social engineering rubbish.

The next governments job is to UNDO the mess labours made and that means a smaller state and therefore less spending and taxes. We DON'T want a government that maintains the size of the current state - that's why labour are going to get kicked out.

No-one will mind a year of pain IF they know what the aim is, so publish a 5 year plan for tax & spending so that we can see what they really believe in!

They need to read this:

http://tpa.typepad.com/home/files/the_great_british_taxpayer_ripoff.pdf

and then explain why they can't EASILY promise a 20% reduction of tax in the first 5 years.

[Libertarian]

"I was under the impression Libertarians always demanded that budgets be balanced by spending cuts, never tax rises."

If you read the entirety of my post you would have understood my point: prudent government is a prerequisite to any REALISTIC programme of state shrinkage and tax cuts. Otherwise you run the risk of short-term economic meltdown and anarchy. The result of such upheaval would be the end of a Cameron govt after one term, and the country going back to Labour.

"Time to debunk this myth about tax rises in the early Thatcher years."

The 1981 budget raised the overall tax burden. The purpose of this was to kill off the budget deficit and bring inflation under control. It worked. The result was an economic upturn that gave the Thatcher govt free rein to take an axe to the state.

[Michael McGowan]

It is true that the tax burden went up under the first Thatcher government but this was largely because they agreed to fund Professor Clegg's recommended inflation-busting pay awards in the public sector. They did not have to but they chose to. This was the 1979 version of "sharing the proceeds of growth" and agreeing to match Labour's spending plans.

[Jake MB BS]

This is not the time to promise anything specific.The whole thrust of criticism must be to depict Labour as the incompetant flounderers that they are. There are still a possible 2 years to go before the general election - the stock market is likely to pick up and the economy is likely to be not so bad as forecast but government expenditure is completely out of control and that is not retrievable with this lot.

British government debt is likely to get a lot worse over the next 2 years and taxes will not drop .
Just stand on the sidelines and make criticism but very little specific . Save that for the hustings.

Actually, tactically the Conservatives need to provide hope so perhaps go easy on the prospect of no tax cuts.

If anything needs to be promised it is that there will be a full enquiry into British government finances, including the corruption angle, to be implemented the day a Conservative govt gets in( a la London).

[Oberon Houston]

Back to the subject of Liam and defense spending for a moment - I think there needs to be an inquiry into the allocation of defense spending and priorities. Labour love spending £xxbn on large scale manufacturing in predominantly Labour areas. I'm not sure these huge projects are the best way to improve the effectiveness of the armed forces. We should be focusing money on frontline services (across the board).

One example is the carrier announcement a couple of weeks ago. Did you know that the last carrier order was made by a Labour Governement and were originally designated "Through Deck Cruisers" to avoid the storm of controversy over the costs associated with the term Aircraft Carrier.

The recent order for the carriers was placed, but there is no money for the protective cordon of frigates which are needed to protect the carriers when at sea, meaning that they cannot go to operational until these ships are also built. The aircraft are not available, so old harriers will be assigned too. It was the order of these carriers that was politically important.

This means that the Tories are effectively tied into these additional orders of ships and aircraft or will have to watch the carriers stay in port. Just like PFI, Brown is shackling future Conservative Govts. to high spending. Its a scandal.

[Dorian Grape the Mild Mannered Toff]

Share the pain. The building industry is flatlining hurting the big boy developers right down through the construction food chain through materials suppliers to the brickies and chippies.

Will we be laying off any town hall planners? Will we be cutting a swathe through building control departments and county archaeology/newt colony anti-development officers? We are not building so why do we need them? No demand so cut the supply just as happens out here in taxpayer land.

[John]

Over taxation is stifling this country and what with the increasing burden of over regulation we can only say that we are in a dreadful mess.

Politicians of all shades have now become despised by the majority of the population which is why we have seen the fall of voter numbers. We desperately need a new way!!!

[Mark Hudson]

I believe Alan was actually quoting Michael Jopling.

[Raj]

As usual, I challenge those who assert that spending can be cut easily to specify specific cuts in specific areas, with details of how that will affect public services. Yes there is waste - but where is it and how can it be reduced? It's easy to say "get rid of quangos" - to do so without causing harm is something else.

The Tories are actually being clever for once on tax. Cameron was not saying he would increase taxes to pay for more spending, he might have to because of the shocking state of public finances. Brown can't attack him because Labour have raised taxes too, only whinge that he's exaggerating the problem.

The Tories' previous problem was that they were constantly accused of hating public services and wanting to cut taxes to benefit themselves, leaving the majority not much better off tax-wise and losing out in regards to things like the NHS.

The country is not in a position to sustain immediate tax cuts, even if people might like that. A Tory government should take tough decisions even if they're unpopular. Once the finances have been sorted out and there is more spending for the military (which it needs), then we can think about tax cuts - but not before.

[Jack Stone]

You can have tax cuts tomorrow. Just pull the troops out of Afganistan and Iraq where we have no business being and it will free up billions.
But oh no people on this site would rather see people dieing in this country because they can`t get the cancer drugs they need to stay alive than stop our military fighting wars in places they have no business being.

[Dale]

"This means that the Tories are effectively tied into these additional orders of ships and aircraft or will have to watch the carriers stay in port. Just like PFI, Brown is shackling future Conservative Govts. to high spending. Its a scandal."

Some of us support higher defense spending. You can't be starting wars left, right, and centre without increasing the defense budget.

[Dale]

"You can have tax cuts tomorrow. Just pull the troops out of Afganistan and Iraq where we have no business being and it will free up billions.
But oh no people on this site would rather see people dieing in this country because they can`t get the cancer drugs they need to stay alive than stop our military fighting wars in places they have no business being."

As recall it was your party tha started those wars, not ours.

[Hector B]

I voted for Boris becasue he promised to stop an end to the waste at City Hall. I'll vote for Dave if he promises to do the same for the country.
It's simple:
LESS GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURE & LESS WASTE.

[Joe James Broughton]

I hope any increases are kept to a minimum. We had an austerity budget on our local council in 2003 (after the Lib Dems were finally asked to leave) - but out we went in 2006.

Tax cuts increase revenue over time - they are core to what we're about , but no responsible opposition can increase the budget deficit in the short term without sending the markets into panic. Government's are ships.

But let's hope the slashing of waste delivers as much as possible after a few years and taxes can fall.

[London Tory]

Janet Daley is to the Conservative Party what Tony Benn was to eighties Labour. Cloud cuckoo land ideological bufoonery, and electoral poison.

Learn the lessons of 2001 and 2005.

1. Conservative Tax Cut Pledge.
2. Labour smear of black holes and no nurses.
3. Scared off floating voters.
4. No Conservative Government.

Clegg could promise to nationalise the moon if he wanted. It is irrelevant. He is irrelevant. His rag bag party are irrelevant.

Ignore Daley, an American sitting in her ivory tower in Docklands. In her own way, she is no better than that other Grand Dame of Printed Unworldliness, Polly Toynbee.

[passing leftie]

Time to debunk this myth about tax rises in the early Thatcher years. It is true that in 1979 VAT rose from 8% to 15%, but this was offset by a reduction in the standard rate of income tax, an increase in tax thresholds and a very substantial cut in the higher rate of tax. There was a net shift from direct to indirect taxes, but from the start Mrs Thatcher's government kept its pledge to reduce the rate of income tax across the board.

Posted by: johnC | July 18, 2008 at 10:19

It's not a myth. There was an increase in taxation.

Just to give some data from the right wing Adam Smith institute, so-called "tax freedom" day was

1979 29 May
1980 11 June
1981 18 June

And, currently under Labour for 2008, 2nd June.

The difference between Labour and the Tories isn't so much taxation and size of the State, but what they spend it on. The Tories - unemployment benefit, Labour - education, and the NHS.

[Angelo Basu]

"Share the pain. The building industry is flatlining hurting the big boy developers right down through the construction food chain through materials suppliers to the brickies and chippies."

The pain is only just starting. The OFT will, some time around the middle of next year, issue its final decision in its investigation into bid rigging and other cartel behaviour in the construction industry. One of the large national construction companies has made a provision in its accounts for paying out over £2bn in fines and settlement of damages claims (mainly to the public sector). Across the industry, the total fine alone will probably be at least £500m (and I wouldn't put it past the OFT to try and reach a nice headline grabbing £1bn fine) all going into the Exchequer.

[Joe James Broughton]

Passing leftie - what about filthy hospitals and money wasted on outreach officers and HR consultants?
Not to mention ID cards.

[Paul Marks]

It is true that taxation is vast and must be reduced - if there is to be any hope of prosperity over the next few years.

It is also true that to reduce taxation goverment spending must be controlled.

However, it is not true that this can be done by targeting government "waste".

Such "anti waste and fraud" drives always promise much and deliver little.

The only way to get a grip on government spending is to find things that the government does and say "WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO THESE THINGS ANY MORE".

In short one must find FUNCTIONS that one things government should no longer try and perform.

Otherwise talk of getting government spending under control is hot air, and any hope of preventing economic decline is gone.

"O.K. what things that the government does would you say it should not do any more?"

There is the hard part - politically.

[Michael McGowan]

So what's the point, London Tory, of having a Tory Party which continues Labour's policies by other means? Couldn't help noticing the distasteful swipe at Janet Daley because she is an American. And? She has lived here for years.

[passing leftie]

Passing leftie - what about filthy hospitals and money wasted on outreach officers and HR consultants?
Not to mention ID cards.

I'm with you on ID cards. Tory policy though is to spend the "savings" on more prison places.

[Edward Huxley]

Don`t know if these are quangos, but the axe could and should fall on a couple; Regional Asemblies, promoted by that buffoon Prescott and another EU project, Arc Manche.

Depressing thing is that councillors who were not elected to these useless bodies and who are already drawing expenses are collecting another lot by serving on them. Sadly a large number of Conservatives are included.

Let the good times roll - sorry - STOP

[Joe James Broughton]

I agree with Edward - don't wish to sound alarmist but am seriously worried these greedy expenses people could still do us considerable damage. People need to know we're on their side, and even if money is very tight, they can trust the Tories to get the best value for it. Coleman GLA (if the story is true) is an utter disgrace. Use your Travelcard sir.

[John Sorrell]

Fox seems to be doing his best to lose the election. The party should promise to cut expenditure and direct taxation together with less government interference all round. Let the people keep the money they earn and choose how they spend it themselves. This is what the Thatcher government understood and that is why she won all her general elections.

[ACT]

Instance #949 in an ongoing series, or, Why Liam *isn't* leader of the 'right' no matter how many times Tim tells us that he is.

[London Tory]

Michael

There is plenty of point in having a Conservative Government. No ID cards, protection of Habeus Corpus, repeal of fox hunting ban, reform of West Lothian absurdity etc etc.

And Janet Daley is American. She is also totally clueless when assessing the political mood of her adopted company, and her idea of meeting a 'real person' I would imagine is confined to tipping the bell boy in Telegraph Towers.

Its her brand of 'fearless Conservatism', along with her mate Heffer, which kicked us into the political long grass until David Cameron came along.

[Lindsay Jenkins]

An incoming Conservative government must immediately get control of the cash position.

That does not mean taking more of our cash.

It means reducing the outflow of taxpayers' money on a welter of non productive and unnecessary projects.

Ohers here have rightly praised Hammersmith and Fulham Council for doing just that - and at the end of year one and year two reducing tax.

It can be done.

[johnC]

Despite adverse comments above, I repeat the statement that Mrs Thatcher signalled her intentions by reducing income tax rates in her first budget in 1979 when the basic rate of tax went down from 33% to 30% and the top rate from 83% to 60% - at a time when the public finances were in just as bad a state as they are today. Yes, this was offset by increases in indirect taxes, and it took time for the overall tax burden to be reduced, but it laid the foundation for the economic improvements of the 1980's and 1990's. The Tory party should be proclaiming its belief in a low tax enterprise economy and planning how it is going to achieve it by reducing the size and expenditure of the state. It is sad that only Nick Clegg is saying this clearly at the moment.

[Robert]

Passing leftie - shame you stopped in ' 81 - a selective choice methinks!

[David]

"Conservatives MUST realise, however, that the public mood has shifted on tax."

Yet that doesn't mean the case for lower taxes at this time is there. The public mood may have shifted, but the need for sound economic and financial management that will be needed when we inherit the mess left by Brown will remain regardless. Fix the roof, then spend on leisure.

[passing leftie]

Passing leftie - shame you stopped in ' 81 - a selective choice methinks!

Posted by: Robert | July 18, 2008 at 16:42

The point I was trying to make was that Thatcher increased the tax burden coming into office after a recession.

[Michael McGowan]

London Tory, if it gives you comfort to believe that David Cameron, the Heir to Blair, will actually do any of these things, notably sorting the West Lothian question, then I wouldn't want to dispel your delusions.

Your borderline xenophobic snobbery re Americans looks suspiciously like an inferiority complex. Most Republicans regard the Tory Party as ridiculous....with good reason.

[StevenAdams]

Whether or not a council can lower CT and improve services is thoroughly irrelevant. Though a good indicator of efficiency, it's just as possible that these councils have merely outsourced a function and cashed the benefit on a one year reduction...? Moreover, perhaps they have beaten down the costs too much and we'll see service degradation in the near future...? We can't possibly know, only a few months on from the CT announcements.

Even if they HAVE managed it, it's still irrelevant. Council spending policies are crucial, but they are primarily focussed upon resident satisfaction and service provision.

Government spending has an enormous and dynamic effect upon the economy, apropos employment, ancillary industries, financial market liquidity and so on... its policies cannot JUST be about efficiency, though of course that should weigh heavily.

I firmly believe that taxes should be lowered - but to think that shocking the economy by knee-jerking thousands of people into unemployment, cancelling contracts with subcontractors - be they construction firms, cleaning companies or consultants - is a good idea is, frankly, ridiculous.

Conservatism is innately prudent... this should be no different. A measured approach to reducing the strain on the economy, through a reduction of spending over time with static taxes and, when appropriate, THEN tax reduction.

[Robin Jackson]

Yes, public finances are a mess and will be worse by 2010, but we must give our votes hope that at least we aspire to curb State spending.As a GP of 26 years standing, I have seen squillions squandered: £12.6billion (yes,billion) on an NHS computer scheme that is now being abandoned before it is implemented; £20m wasted on the stillborn NHS University (remember that one? Neither does anyone else).The Tax Payers Alliance suggests £32billion could be cut without any detriment to public services whatsoever.Come on chaps:this should be your Big Idea.

[Giffin]

The cost of dismantling the state apparatus is going to be mcuh higher than any short-term savings that would result.

It is much easier for the Communists to enlarge the State; they can nationalise without compensation. But for Parties that respect the rule of Law, legally-binding Contracts must be honoured.

An incoming Conservative government faces the prospect of paying off the contracts of millions of people who were recuited by Labour into the non-jobs it created, and buying out the contracts of the firms who have been appointed to implement their useless policies.

Just look at the mess with SATs: the firm responsible is on a 5 Year contract. In 2 years time there will still be 2 years remaining so if we cancel the contract we will still to pay them it as a one-off payment. That will hurt us short-term before we see the long-term benefit.

If the economy is still in the doldrums, where will the money come from to pay the costs of cutting the State back to size?

The legal environment Labour has created means that the fiscal challenge facing Cameron and Osborne is greater than that which faced Thatcher, although that is not to disparage the huge political and economic challenges her government overcame to create the prosperity that Brown and Blair have squandered.

All we can hope is that Cameron has learned the lessons of Heath. A "softly-softly" approach will simply leave huges swathes of patronage in the hands of Communist idealogues, who will use their influence to undermine his efforts and defeat him at the following election.

Personally, I'm sanguine about this. Rubicon wouldn't have been such a "must read" a couple of years ago if they hadn't worked out the core message: if you leave alternate power bases intact they will eventually overcome you. Bliar was Marc Antony to Brown's Pompey: will it be Cameron or the Unions who will play Caesar?

[Phil C]

Dale: "Some of us support higher defense spending. You can't be starting wars left, right, and centre without increasing the defense budget."

I support higher defence spending, but it needs to be spent on the right things. If we are going to have aircraft carriers, they need to have the appropriate destroyer support etc. If we are going to fight two counter-insurgency wars simultaneously in Iraq and Afghanistan then we need more soldiers, more and better armoured vehicles, decent infantry kit, etc.

Your argument is a bit like supporting Blair's "we want a better NHS so lets p*ss more taxpayer's money up against the wall on it". A complete non-sequitur.

[Phil C]

Giffin - if we get in with a decent majority we will have 5 years to play with. So why not spend a couple of years dismantling the state apparatus? It doesn't matter if we are are unpopular during this period - or even the first 4 years 364 days. The only poll that matters is the subsequent general election at which point things will have been turned round.

I hope that ETS have failed to meet the terms of their contract in which case they can be nailed. An incoming Conservative government needs to support capitalism, ie

* if you do well in a competitive environment, you make profit, big bonuses, etc etc

* if you mess up you lose your shirt

Lets see profit become the reward for risk and not just the reward for cosying up to Big Brother.

[Dale]

"Your argument is a bit like supporting Blair's "we want a better NHS so lets p*ss more taxpayer's money up against the wall on it". A complete non-sequitur."

I wasn't actually supporting Brown's defence budget. I was just pointing out that we really ought to be spending more if we are comitting our troops to war.

[John Barstow]

I broadly support Liam Fox.

The defence of the UK and the unashamed promotion of her status as a senior power on the globe has got to take precedence over immediate tax cuts. We are Party of Queen and Commonwealth. The times of under-investment and under-traing has got to stop.

Conservatism is about conserving our national interests and global role, as well as instituions at home. Thats what creates clear 'blue water' between us and other parties for over the past 200 years.

And at the end of the day the British are a loyal patroitic people which is why we re-elected the Conservatives & Unionists in large numbers in the "Khaki" Election (1902) following the Boer war and the 1983 Election following the Falklands War.

[Mr D Smith]

To Mr David Cameron,
I am ashamed that MP's can behave in such a manner regarding MP's expenses. I personally would treat MP's like a child that has miss behaved, by removing the expenses from them all together, as they have proven to be untrustworthy..

I do have a scheme that would solve any further issues with this matter, This would require the Houses of Parliament built a block of flats like council flats as residents for MP's.

MP’s use these flats whilst working within the Houses of Parliament. These flats could be built to be self sufficient e.g. green electric and water.. ect... Each flat would be furnished to a standard appropriate for there use, decided by a committee of members of the public randomly selected from the voters register... Further more you could provide a transport system not unlike the one the post office underground system uses, for access to and from the flats to the houses of parliament saving on travel expenses ect...