George Osborne will only guarantee that hospitals and overseas aid are protected from spending cuts

1pm Update: In response to this, a Conservative spokesman has just emailed me to say:

"Our position on protected areas of spending for 2009-10 is the same - we have ring fenced the health, education, defence and aid departmental budgets, but would spend £5bn less than Labour on other things."

---

Yesterday it was Frank Field; today it is shadow chancellor George Osborne who is warning the public that drastic action will be required in order to deal with the "atrocious" state of the public finances.

Mr Osborne has given an interview to the FT (of which there is more inside the paper here) in which he asserts that Labour's projected 1.1% annual increase in public spending between 2011 and 2014 is "unsustainable" and that it will be spending cuts rather than tax rises which account for reducing the the fiscal deficit:

"You don’t want to kill off the recovery with heavy tax rises that bring you back to square one... I’ve mentally adjusted myself and David Cameron has mentally adjusted himself to the fact that we are going to have to take some very difficult decisions for the good of the country."

But anyone expecting a swathe of detailed proposals in response to next week's Budget - or at any point before the general election - will be disappointed:

Mr Osborne said the Conservatives would not be drawn into a rerun of the last election, when they came under fire for revealing detailed plans of proposed cuts. He signalled that the Tories would present most of their tax and spending policy in terms of broad principles only, rather than allowing the run-up to the election expected next summer to become “drowned in numbers”.

Whereas Frank Field mooted a cut in the NHS budget, the Shadow Chancellor still refuses to do so. Mr Osborne is still insistent that the health budget is protected from future cuts (as is that for overseas aid) - although no other area of spending is guaranteed such ringfencing. Defence and schools were previously given special protected status.  It is not clear if this interview changes that (see update above).

Mr Osborne also asserted that the Budget will be a pivotal political moment:

“Wednesday is going to be a day of reckoning because then you will see the depths of the recession, the terrible state of the public finances [and] figures which will show, I expect, a terrible rise in unemployment.”

However, as far as the next election is concerned, he suggests that the Conservatives still have work to do in order to persuade people positively to switch their support.

“The challenge now is that people want a change of government, people are turning their backs on Labour, but they need to be persuaded that we offer a real change.”

Jonathan Isaby

Comments

[DCMX]

I am disappointed that defense is not spared the scalpel.

[Norm Brainer]

Overseas aid? .. not meaning to be cruel, but shouldn't that be one of the first to go - sort out your own house before helping others etc.
If he's been bullied into not proposing NHS cuts then he MUST propose reform so that management and red tape is cut, but the funds are used somewhere better.

[Phyllis Crash]

We certainly should NOT be giving aid to China and India.

[ToryBlog.com --> Not a roon]

Osborne is not fit for office.

I'm sorry, but he is not. Still, we will simply have to wait and watch him fall on his face before we get the Chancellor the country needs.

[John Broughton]

Some overseas aid should be top of the list for the axe. China - why? In many ways the transfer of our manufacturing industry to China can be likened to aid.

[Malcolm Dunn]

Not suprising I suppose but I think wrong.Osborne in my opinion should spell out some of the areas he will be seeking savings long before a general election campaign begins. I strongly believe that after so many years of lies and spin the British are ready for some honesty even if it hurts.

[Realpolitik]

It is absurd and self-contradictory to assert that "we are going to have to take some very difficult decisions for the good of the country" and then, in the same breath, to refuse to even consider cutting the NHS and Aid budgets.

You can't puff yourself up as a man prepared to take tough decisions when, in fact, you're not at all prepared to take tough decisions.

It's precisely this contradiction between purported image and actual actions that has given Brown such a bad name.

[Cleethorpes Rock]

Overseas aid? And they wonder why the BNP is gaining traction.

[Jennifer Wells]

I am very proud that the Conservative Party now regards the welfare of the world's poorest people as a priority.

[pp]

If the NHS budget is not going to be cut, is that a confession that there are no savings to be made?

I thought Labour had been throwing money away on the NHS? Was this all wrong? have Labour been doing a good job (in camerons/osbornes view) on the NHS after all?

Odd to have a tory party that can't even 'think the unthinkable' to the extent a labour MP (frank field) can.

[RichardJ]

"I am very proud that the Conservative Party now regards the welfare of the world's poorest people as a priority."

And what about the poor people of this country? How do you think they feel? We have pensioners skipping meals due to a lack of money while we send money overseas.

While I can see the electoral advantages of refusing to slash NHS spending I think Osborne is mad if he thinks not slashing overseas aid will be popular.

[Alex C]

Andrew Mitchell has been doing a wonderful job in Parliament highlighting the wasteful spending coming from DfID, of how money aimed at reducing poverty only further engenders corruption. Aside from the ludicrous aid being given to India and China, the aid given to sub-Saharan Africa never reaches its intended targets and rather enables their government officials to buy newer Landcruisers and weaponry.

I can only hope that Osborne's proposed freeze on international aid means that our money will be given to promoting good governance and furthering free markets across the developing world, rather than unchecked direct aid.

[James Burdett]

RichardJ - Oh no doubt that it would be popular in some sections. But sometimes you have to do the right thing. Yes we have our problems in this country, but we are still amongst the richest nations on earth. Overseas aid is about helping countries where people have no food, no shelter, no education and no healthcare. You now want this rich country to remove the only hope and the only help that they have. That would be an unutterably cruel and heartless response, and totally unworthy of this party and this country.

[Peter]

"I am very proud that the Conservative Party now regards the welfare of the world's poorest people as a priority."

The effective way for us to help the world's poorest would be to leave the EU cartel. It would also strengthen this country.

[Jack Iddon]

Well persuade them Mr Osbourne, persuade them. First tell Mr Cameron you need a policy, any policy, it might work.
Also, for heavens sake, we have our own people, the elderly reliant on a niggardly state pension, living in poverty whom you should attend to at home before following Brown on his foreign aid ego trip. Many of our own people are suffering after the state has robbed them of any return on the savings they have prudently made all their lives to support them in retirement (as you will be asking them to do again) and giving it to people who (in some cases) have over extended themselves with large and in some cases 130% mortgages, fiscal lunacy of the first order ie. built in negative equity from day one, thanks amongst other things to a lack of diligence on your part,on your watch as shadow chancellor, where were you when this was happening, kipping on a Russian yacht with a few cronies?
You and your equally lightweight pall will have to pull your socks up Mr Osbourne if we are to win. I really do pray you have it in you but sadly see no signs that you have.
MUST TRY HARDER!!!

[ToryBlog.com --> Not a roon]

James Burdett,
I think you are kind of forgetting that the Government does not have any money of its own as such, it is simply spending *our* money on *our* behalf. The money we worked for.

Now, if you ask all the Brits who face losing their jobs and thier homes if their number one priority is keeping a roof over their families heads or overseas aid, how do you think they will answer?

If the Government is not spending our money how we would like, then it is time to change the Government as we do not exist simply to further Osborne's goals, he exists to further ours.

[Jack Iddon]

Just to correct an omission.
I wonder if Mr Osbourne would have bothered to wake up to say anything if Frank Field's far more weighty statement of yesterday had not stung him into action? Did it wake him up to the fact that an ex Labour cabinet minister was doing his job better than he was.

[James Burdett]

I would point out that I have lost my job, but I realise that in this country I am not going to starve to death. In this country I have healthcare when I get ill. In this country I have a decent roof over my head, a bed to sleep in clothes to wear and shoes on my feet. I know that if we stopped all international aid it would make little difference to this country and a huge difference to those countries we aid.

No matter how bad things get in this country they are nothing as compared to those countries where people have to exist on less than $1 a day. We are extremely lucky in this country and we have a moral duty to use our good fortune to assist those countries that have little or nothing. To do any less would be unspeakably selfish and would be completely inhuman.

[Steve Tierney]

Dump overseas aid and replace it with defence.

[Mark Hudson]

If my son (or one of his troopers) is killed when he goes to Afghanistan next year because his equipment is wholly inadequate, will those above still feel very proud of yourselves that the Conservative Party ringfenced propping up corrupt 3rd world dictators instead of supporting those who serve this country in our armed forces?

[ToryBlog.com --> Not a roon]

James,
That's great. So give your spare cash to charity.

But for those in this country who don't have a 'decent roof' over their heads, or face losing it, please spare me your preaching about how they are selfish and inhuman for not putting international aid before protecting for their families.

I'm sure if you lost your home, and your children were stuck in some stinking B&B, you might just think international aid isn't the number one priority.

Once again, the out-of-touch seek to extract money from the rest of us to feed their own insulated priorities.

[Roy Seeman]

I think it will be the biggest mistake George Osborne could make if he ring-fences overseas aid. The people in Britain are sick to death of the EGO trips of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown giving OUR money away on any pretence, just to look big, when we are suffering from hardships at home, (Long before the "GLOBAL" recession). With Pensioners, the Armed Forces, and those in fear of losing their jobs and being unemployed for no reasons of their own making, all struggling to exist, giving money to Overseas Countries, many of whom are the victims of Corruption, is the last resort, not the first consideration. I HOPE GEORGE OSBORNE AND DAVID CAMERON WILL ANNOUNCE A RETHINK ON THIS POLICY, or the damage could be irreparable!!! Please listen to the Grass Roots of this Country on such delicate matters. And by the way, don't ignore the feelings about Europe either.

[James Burdett]

I have given spare cash to a variety of charities, but I there is still a place for the kind of leveraged action that international aid can provide. I now have no spare cash, and am in a fight with the DWP to get that to which I am entitled. Nothing will stop me believing that International Development is a good thing. Indeed I have been part of a family that has had to have food handouts and even then I knew that I was luckier than anyone living in the poorest nations on earth.

I have never believed that we should ignore the issues in our country, but we need to understand that there is a big difference between relative poverty in this country and absolute poverty in the devoloping world.

[ToryBlog.com --> Not a roon]

Perhaps Cameron should be honest and expand his core theme to:

Broken Britain; but let's mend the rest of the world first.

[Rare Breed]

Pull out of Iraq and Afganistan - we simply can't afford it.

Osbourne is much better when Cameron lets him off the leash.

[RichardJ]

"We are extremely lucky in this country and we have a moral duty to use our good fortune to assist those countries that have little or nothing."

If such a moral duty exists then people will be happy to give voluntarily. Who the hell are you to come along and force me to give money to charity? Who exactly has decided that this is a moral duty?

The first priority of government is defence of the realm, our armed forces should be spared the chop especially bearing in mind the shoddy way they've been treated.

[Ross Warren]

"You don’t want to kill off the recovery with heavy tax rises that bring you back to square one... I’ve mentally adjusted myself and David Cameron has mentally adjusted himself to the fact that we are going to have to take some very difficult decisions for the good of the country."

A ticking timebomb that may yet force a Labour victory at the polls. There had best be some clarity on what exactly they have in mind. If Labour can carry the debt with the help of their Pink president the public is going to back them above lunatic fridge policies from out of touch Old Etonians. Lets be absolutely clear about this cuts will have to be earmarked in advance of a general election. A Black policy hole simply isn't good enough. At the moment we are being given some for-warning that Tories intend to be tough on the under lying systemic problems but which and what is to be cut has yet to be defined. This will not do at all, and the period of grace before this lack of policy will become an issue is short. The false recovery will be under way by the time the next election is called, we had better be in a position to give concrete plans by then or we simply will have a massive credibility gap and no stones to hide under. The Press pack is still propping up Labour. So the sooner we can have the proposed figures, and were the first round of cuts will be directed the better. The large psychology departments of the national health service seem to be ripe for the bin Along with the vast raft of graduate jobs that have been tagged onto the public services because "psychology students are people to and deserve jobs". There is a massive culture of jobs for the boys that is the result of liberalising the education system in the 60's.
Thousands of make work jobs that we the tax payer are expected to fund forever. Lets be crystal clear graduates are far better placed to recover from unemployment than many other groups. So it quite resonable to part company with these people who have had such a comfy ride for so long on the tax payer. I am sorry to say that groups like Cafcass will have to feel a trimming of their expense account culture. As well as a cut in the numbers employed. Some real trimming of these departments will be a prize in the long run if a little difficult to announce. I absolutely believe that 10% of our upper civil service should be encouraged to go into business. These Graduate level cuts are essential if we are to justify austerity measures for those who are not so well placed to generate their own incomes. Lets be bold and imaginative and bring solutions that are thought through. One thing is certain the public sector has got to shrink. We must find ways of encouraging good public servants to become great privateers.

[Cleethorpes Rock]

Preserving the aid budget rather makes the assumption that government aid is the most superior and effective form of assistance for the developing world.

I, and others who oppose the Aid budget are not opposed to helping poorer countries per se.

Jennifer Wells, I know we have sparred on this before and that Tim agrees with you strongly on this subject so I respect that you have a committment to International Development. Please answer me this:

Which do you think is more effective, Government sponsored and controlled charity or a mixture of private charity and free trade?

If we want to do something really effective for the world's poor, we'll tear down the barriers to them trading their goods around the world, chief amongst them the immoral CAP.

[pp]

James - I don't think any tory would dispute that 'International Development' is a good thing - a holy grail to be promoted and worked towards.

However this has nothing to do with the government taking money from the public and giving it away.

No one should feel 'proud' of spending other peoples money. If it is being spent as the people want then the spender is just doing their job; if it is being spent against the will of the people then the spender should feel deeply ashamed.

[Iain]

"Nothing will stop me believing that International Development is a good thing."

How about the fact that Africa has received more Aid than any other place in the world, yet it is more of a basket case now than when we started handing out the $1.3 trillion in Aid we have so far given them!

Zambia, if all its foreign aid had gone into investment, Zambia per capita income would have quadrupled in just over 30 years, but it actually fell.

The fact is Aid is no more than international welfare, and just like welfare it creates dependency and corruption.

[pp]

p.s. I think 'pride' in spending other peoples money is one of the main flaws in Browns mental make up. As it appears that he is actually 'proud' of having tricked the british public in to financing things that they would not have chosen to finance.

[James Burdett]

Defence of the realm of course is important but then we need to understand that extreme poverty can lead to desperation and that in turn can be a seed bed for extremism and terrorism. It can also lead to interest in narcotics as they have a greater risk/reward profile. So on the basis that prevention is better than cure it is better to spend a few million pounds on aid today than several billion on counter terror and anti-narcotics policy in a decade.

Having said all that there is absolutely a need for looking beyond the parochial. I don't believe that it is morally supportable to look upon the plight of the poorest and shrug our shoulders. The problems of the third world are several orders of magnitude greater than anything we are ever likely to see in this country.

[Iain]

" I don't believe that it is morally supportable to look upon the plight of the poorest and shrug our shoulders. "

The problem is the bleeding hearts who have held sway over Aid policy have just made matters worse, for these Governments, rather than being confronted with thier incompentence have been feather bedded by a deluge of Aid money, so rather than putting in supply side reforms in their economies and getting a handle on corruption, the reverse has happened because of the effects of Aid.

[James Burdett]

pp - Whatever the government spends money on is going to be against the will of someone in a country of 60million people. Too many have forgottent the words of Edmund Burke

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

[James Burdett]

Iain - That is an argument for reforming the way we spend aid money, it is not an argument for taking a super-sized hatchet to the aid budget.

[Mark Hudson]

So, James, it's ok for George Osborne to leave our fronline troops with even less spent on them than they have now is it?

[ToryBlog.com --> Not a roon]

James,
As Cleethorpes asked Jennifer, why do you think Governments are better placed to spend money for international aid more wisely than experienced charities?

Why shouldn't people be free to choose for themselves who they donate to?

[Iain]

"That is an argument for reforming the way we spend aid money,"

No its not, for the very structure of giving Aid money, top down, invites corruption and dependency. Look 80% of some of these countries budgets are Aid dependent, by doing that we have disenfranchised the electorate and removed the accountability of their Governments. One of the key means of accountability is the electorsate demanding to know where theor politicians spend their tax money, when 80% comes in the form of Aid, the electorate become apathetic, and politicians corrupt!

(Ivory Coast by 1997 received 127 times more capital aid than India, despite an appalling record of incompetence and corruption. It has twice created lavish new capitals. Between 1979 -94 income of average Ivorians halved! )

[James Burdett]

Mark Hudson - There is nothing to suggest that there will be less spent on Defence, all Osborne has done is to refuse to make further commitments than those he has already made. That isn't saying he will slash defence spending to the bone, it is saying that until they work out what the state of play is they cannot make commitments. I would be very surprised given the noises coming from Liam Fox if spending on Defence was cut.

Osborne is only avoiding electoral hostages to fortune.

[James Burdett]

I don't think that Governments are better than charities, and I don't think that charities are better than Governments. I think they exist in a similar space and within the space of delivering international aid there is scope for both, in fact I would suggest there is a need for both.

[niconoclast]

There should of course be no Foreign Aid whatsoever.It is criminal and corrupt and quite simply theft and larceny and Socialistic.It is an attempt to extend the wretched Welfare State across the globe rendering the British taxpayer effective slaves and indentured servants of the worlds population.Once again the Conservative party is pandering to the Socialistic dogma and not even pretending any more to be the defender of Capitalisim.What on earth is it doing pledging more money to socialised healthcare? Osbourne is a crypto klepto Socialist and utterly contemptible.

[Mark Hudson]

So you'll be very surprised. That's a real comfort to those being deployed who go on e-bay to purchase equipment to supplement their inadequate services-issue kit.

[Bexie]

James as someone who is self employed and have been brutally taxed by this shower, if I lose the final drips of work headed my way I have to be starving and out on the street before this government lifts a finger to help. That sits very badly with me when a large proportion of my income is going in part to fund the corrupt plutocrats of the world to live in luxury.

#1 target is overseas aid. Cancel it all. #2 target funding the EU. Cancel it all until they can account for the money they have already had.

[ToryBlog.com --> Not a roon]

It would seem that international aid falls into the same space as the BBC licence fee.

I like the BBC but don't want to be forced to subscribe by politicians. The same for charitable donations.

Government interference in both areas does not improve quality, it simply enables politicians to meddle in areas they should leave alone.

If people want to, they will subscribe/donate. If the service/cause cannot raise money voluntarily then what right does it have to survive?

[Ross Warren]

"it is saying that until they work out what the state of play is "

They have had quite a number of months years even, to work out our position. The underlying weakness our systemic imbalance, is abundantly clear to most people. We have a bloated public sector which has many vested intrest groups, and which is draining our coffers faster than we can pay tax. We have a very large Unemployed problem which is currently getting worse and which also drains the coffers dry of needed funding.
We have a large National debt which is also draining the coffers faster than we can find more tax. Add to this a National dependence on expensive foreign Oil and Gas reserves and we are starting to see the problem at least. Oh and BTW we have let the Electric and Gas companies maintain rip off pricing. On the other hand we need to build a next generation of power stations. We could do with a wish list of expensive provisions and yet we are stuck with the bill for an Olympic games. We have to cut back most on those parts that deliver the least and frankly that means a lot of graduate level jobs in the public services are going to have to be axed. I can understand why G.O. has been slow to put 2+2 together because confronting this massive problem is going to involve a great deal of gnashing of teeth. We have to tell the truth but it seems we are scared to do it because rightly we fear that the public will prefer almost anything rather than face up to the realities of our situation. However, going into the run up to the next general election with vague threats about painful choices is a recipe for another 4-5 years of awful and destructive governance from the Guru of sleaze and his awful spend spend mentality. The tax payer is going to have a very difficult set of choices to make but currently he isn't being given much detail from the opposition which is all at Sea it would seem. Uncounted Cuts are just a useless as uncounted promises to spend. Its high time G.O. and D.C. told us exactly what they have in mind. Before the mini-boom generated from the spend spend Brown takes hold.

[James Maskell]

So Overseas aid is safe but the education budget isnt?

Pistols on the table, George. Which foot is it going to be this time?

[Iain]

"The tax payer is going to have a very difficult set of choices to make but currently he isn't being given much detail from the opposition "

Jeff Randal put the size of the problem in perspective when he said....

"The real shocker, however, is what's in store for this year. At least £175 billion of borrowing seems likely, and £200 billion is not impossible. That's more than the Chancellor's entire take of income tax."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/5166447/Here-are-just-a-few-things-Alistair-Darling-should-do-in-his-Budget.html

And the Conservatives think it a good policy to have us borrowing £10 billion on our overdraft to give it away in Aid.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Jack Iddon @ 09.44 - ...'thanks amongst other things'(thats BIG of you) 'to a lack of diligence on your part, on your watch as shadow chancellor, where were you when this was happening, kipping on a Russian yacht with a few cronies?'

Well with you around Mr. Iddon, Mr. Brown can feel well reassured, that he has still got a chance! YOU know perfectly well, that neither Cameron nor Osborne has ever been able to put across an idea uninterrupted in Parliament, if Brown isn't slicing them into pieces, or the back benchers baying like drunks (probably on instructions!), then Gorbals Mick will do his masters bidding and prevent statements that might get a favourable reception by the Opposition voters.

I sometimes think that some naggers on this site would be really happy if, in the future they could say 'There you are, you see, what did I tell you. Now we have got Brown again!'!!

[pp]

James Burdett. Clearly no government decision will have unanimous support which is why the government should only act where it is not possible for individuals to make their own individual decisions.

Anyone can give money to foreign countries if they want to - no need for government intervention.

Government extravention - do less for less, because for the taxpayer less is more.

[Peter Hill]

I always thought Labour increased aid to our competitors overseas in their continued effort to DESTROY BRITAIN as an independent nation state. Of course they're happy to send money to India and China who have used the money to take over so much of our manufacturing. There is massive amounts of poverty and inequality in these countries but their government don't care, only our government does!

We should stop ALL aid to non-commonweath countries, and better still, only give it to countries which actually matter to us such as Gibralter, Ascension, The Falklands. These outposts require better defences and infrastructure, especially if we're to prevent the Argentinians having another go at the Falklands.

As a ex-army officer, I can tell you horror stories about the state of our lads equipment that would make your skin crawl...weapons that don't work, vehicles over 25 years old, cheap boots that rip your feet to shreds...the armed forces are dieing for want of better equipment!

The NHS also drastically needs reform. Billions has been given away to private contractors while in some hospitals they can't afford to re-paint the walls or clean the wards properly.

Osbourne is right, the next 10-15 years are going to be years of thrift, and rightly so!

[Edward Huxley]

No reduction in overseas aid or spending on the NHS?

We should stop all overseas aid and surely the NHS could be given a complete overhaul resulting in savings without harming patient care.

Coming on top of his crazy green ideas he seems to be on another planet.

[Jack Iddon]

Patsy Sergeant What a silly response! If they can not get the message across in parliamrnt they should possibly give some consideration to giving way to those who can. However, veen if they can't there are many other ways they could communicate policy, concern over wrong fiscal practices. Do get real, if you have a message woth listening to people will listen. To my deep concern, even fear for our nations future these two do not seem to have such a message.

[Tony Makara]

I hope Mr Osbornes support for hospitals will also extend to continued funding for mental health crisis teams. These people do a vital job 24/7 in responding to the danger of suicide with troubled out-patients. Care in the community is at its most valued and valiant when dealing with mental health issues.

[James Burdett]

pp - Ulitmately it is possible for individuals to make decisions for themselves in all areas of government spending. What the argument needs to be about is whether it is desirable for them to so do.

The whole concept of living in a society is that people pool the resources they have in an attempt to gain something greater together than they could acheive by themselves alone. Most of political debate is about where you draw the dividing lines between what can be done alone and what should be done together. Very few people would advocate the elimination of society and the concept of collective activity.

[Comstock]

I'm glad Osbourne is ringfencing overseas aid, some very depressing comments on this thread.

However public spending cuts will not get us out of a recession if they result in job losses- that much should be obvious to anyone.

[James]

So let me get this straight: we need drastic cuts in expenditure, but the only things that aren't to be messed with are the NHS - the world's third largest employer, and ripe for efficiency savings - and "overseas aid". So defence, education, and transport are all less important than the colossal sham that is aid. Cameron and Osborne obviously haven't read Dambisa Moyo's book.

And they wonder why the BNP are gaining traction?

[John Coles]

So Overseas Aid is sacrosanct and Defence is not? Nor will the NHS be knocked into shape? And these people consider themselves Conservatives?
For tragic personal reasons, Mr Cameron is emotionally attached to the NHS. I fear it will be many years before he transcends his experience and begins to see the NHS for the mess it is: be prepared for years of "Conservative" indulgence of NHS incompetency and overspending.

[David Belchamber]

"He signalled that the Tories would present most of their tax and spending policy in terms of broad principles only, rather than allowing the run-up to the election expected next summer to become “drowned in numbers”.

That is fine; may we now hear what some of those 'broad principles' are to encourage us a bit? e.g:
* a simpler tax system, possibly flat tax.
* a large rise in the tax threshold to benefit the least well-off (will Darling do this himself next week?).
* a simpler benefit system.
* vast reduction of red tape for police, teachers etc
* efficient management of the NHS, initially to achieve more from less.
* an attack on obese government.
* restructuring and remotivation of civil service.

I agree with those who feel that Defence spending for those in war zones should increase, while aid to countries who are now better off than the UK should be reduced.

[James]

James Burdett and others, the point about aid is that it doesn't work. See the work of Peter Bauer and the author I mentioned in my previous post, Dambisa Moyo. The only exception to this rule are tragedies like the 2004 Tsunami, the aftermath of which obviously required some form of outside aid.

[RichardJ]

"Too many have forgottent the words of Edmund Burke"

Burke's words made sense in an age where the majority of the population were ignorant peasants. Nowadays that isn't the case, there are thousands of people who are better qualified and better informed than the current bunch.

Besides, do you think Mr Burke would have approved of foreign aid?

"The whole concept of living in a society is that people pool the resources they have in an attempt to gain something greater together than they could acheive by themselves alone"

And I suspect the majority of people in soceity if you asked them wouldn't be opposed to a cut in the aid budget.

[RichardJ]

"I'm glad Osbourne is ringfencing overseas aid, some very depressing comments on this thread."

What is depressing? That we believe people should be given a choice about whether they send money overseas?

"However public spending cuts will not get us out of a recession if they result in job losses- that much should be obvious to anyone."

Spending increases won't get us out of the recession either. If you go down the Keynesian path of spraying money around you might create a brief recovery but it will be unsustainable due to it being based on government borrowing which can't go on forever. It will also delay the liquidation of the bad investments made during the boom. Balancing the budget will put us in a strong position to recover. No, it won't cure the bust but that's because busts can't be cured. They are in fact themselves a curing mechanism - they purge the economy of bad investments.

[Peter Mullins]

"Foreign Aid is the phenomenon of taking money from poor people in Rich Countries and giving it to Rich People in Poor Countries!"
Those British pensioners who are having to cut out meals in order to save money, will be so comforted to know that despite their difficulties, George Osborne will ensure that ever more money will still be found to continue to pay for such things as:

'New roads in Africa' - £100 million given.
'Gender equality in Uganda' - £15 million given
'To Zimbabwe (Robert Mugabe)' - £150 million given
'To India' - whose industrialists own large portions of British industry, including Land Rover/Jaguar - £825 million given
'China', still technically a "poor, third World country," (according to the U.N.) £460 million given and, the Grand daddy of them all, the corrupt, dictatorial Forth Reich known as the E.U. into whose maw we throw something like £54 BILLION each and every year.
When, oh when are our politicians going to listen to The People and act according to THEIR wishes? If they don't wake up soon they will find that when they eventually do we will have a British National Party government.

[nigel syson]

Cut overseas aid as much is directed via the EU and thus wasted. Also much is directed to corrupt third world leaders.

Defence is the one area that should not be cut. We are fighting two wars and troops are overstretched, under equiped , under paid and poorly housed.

[Domesday]

Nobody that believes overseas aid is a good thing needs the threat of imprisonment to make them fund it; enforced payment of overseas aid through taxation is a deeply pessimistic comment on individuals' willingness to help others in distress. We should not ring-fence overseas aid.

[Jon Gale]

The cupboard is bare, cuts have to be made, taxes may have to rise, every child is lumbered with thousands of pounds of national debt, etc.....but oh! by the way, we will continue wasting money on foreigners.

[Paul D]

Any country with nukes (India, Pakistan, China) shoule be crossed off the aid list right now

If you can maintain a nuclear arsenal then you're rich enough to not need aid

[Alan.Summ]

For Constock - your comment "public spending cuts will not get us out of a recession if they result in job losses" is not obvious to everyone.
Tax pays for public salaries so public employees are a drain on the real tax payers (ie tax raised from commercial enterprizes and their employees). Only if welfare benefits for the unemployed civil servants cost more than employing them will it become a problem and if it does cost more then there is something seriously wrong with the benefit system.
This country needs small government and big commercial enterprises to survive and pay the debts that Gordon Brown is leaving us with.

[johnC]

'but would spend £5bn less than Labour on other things'

But I thought Osborne has said that the proposals on tax and spending would be set out in terms of broad principles, not numbers. Why doesn't he tell CCHQ that ?
At a time when the Government is talking in terms of £ 180 - £ 190 billions of borrowing for each of the next 2 years what earthly use is a paltry £ 5bn ? CCHQ should be ashamed to make such a pathetic comment.

[Guinevere]

Like many, I was disappointed by Mr Osborne's 'loose' statement. The election has not been won yet.

My list of priorities would include CLINICAL health care (so not propping those use managers any more), pensioners, defence and schools. Any civilized country will also give foreign aid but for heavens sake don't put in on top of the list! Even Labour, in today's climate, would struggle to get away with it! What on earth was he thinking....

[Will Yoxall]

My single biggest concern is defence spending. Defence has been the Governments cash point for other departments since the early 1990s - it has not benefited from the good years it should not have to pay for the profligacy in other areas.

I can understand why George Osborne has said he will ring fence NHS spending - the general public are quite sensitive on the issue but I have to say that I personally feel there is room for cuts - even if this means making hard choices about what kind of care the NHS should provide and to whom it should provide it.

Education needs reform but this can be done partly through ensuring a pupils gain qualifications which are recognised and respected, not given out with packets of Cornflakes. We should go ahead with Michael Gove's plan but we might have to wait until we can afford it.

DfID is a sticky issue - I can see that appearances are kept up by keeping to the 0.7% GDP by 2013 goal - and on many levels that is laudable but there are other pressing needs for some of that money. In accounting terms some of DfID's cash could be spent by the MoD in support of international security and prosperity - think about recent operations in Sierra Leone, the Congo and perhaps a more assertive effort in Somalia in the near future.

[RichardJ]

"but would spend £5bn less than Labour on other things."

Make that 50 billion and you might generate some enthusiasm.

[Joseph S.]

Overseas aid should be completely re-evaluated this is (sorry Mr Osborne and Mr Cameron) a pathetic attempt to prevent the Nasty Party jibes!

[Cleethorpes Rock]

We're spending £50bn PER BANK on bailouts and the aid budget is £10bn, yet all we can do is promise to spend £5bn less than Labour. Not £5bn less than is being spent now, but £5bn less than Labour will be spending in 2010-11, so it's quite probable that by the time Bunker-Brown's Scorched-Earth measures are added onto the tab, the Conservative Party, repeat CONSERVATIVE Party is pledging to spend even more than Labour are spending now. It makes me want to cry.

Osborne knows public spending has to be cut drastically to restore the public finances and is doing a disservice to the country by not having the cojones to level with us about the size of the task.

By kidding people they can have all the spending they like with no difference in taxation, he is going along with the credit-card culture that got us into this mess, setting himself up for a fall in the process.

[Ross Warren]

"Osborne is not fit for office.

I'm sorry, but he is not. Still, we will simply have to wait and watch him fall on his face before we get the Chancellor the country needs."

Clark?

[The Rifle]

Has everyone on this comment thread gone nuts?

Osborne has just promised to cut public spending instead of raising taxes - not only is this the right thing to do, but 72 per cent of the public agree

There is now clear blue water between the tax and spend/boom and bust Labour Party, and the live within our means/do more with less Conservatives.

[Ross Warren]

"Osborne knows public spending has to be cut drastically to restore the public finances and is doing a disservice to the country by not having the cojones to level with us about the size of the task."

This is because many of the cuts are going to effect sacred cow organizations and will mean more work for some people and none at all for others. The public however deserves to be told the truth, and not fobbed off with vague threats of hard times coming. I do wonder if G.O. is quite up to speed yet.
I imagine that plans are being formulated
and that numbers and key features of the trust of policy has been decided? What's that, "George doesn't know" I don't think so. Time for some honest talking Mr Osborne.

[David Belchamber]

Foreign aid is a conundrum because we have a moral duty to help alleviate genuine poverty in third world countries.

However, as Peter Mullins points out at 13.15, significant savings could reasonably be made: e.g.

'To India' - whose industrialists own large portions of British industry, including Land Rover/Jaguar - £825 million given
'China', still technically a "poor, third World country," (according to the U.N.) £460 million given and, the Grand daddy of them all, the corrupt, dictatorial Forth Reich known as the E.U. into whose maw we throw something like £54 BILLION each and every year.

If it were possible, much real aid (apart from food and medical supplies) should be made in kind e.g. hospitals, schools, desalination plants etc could be built by British workers but paid for by our taxpayers. That could avoid huge sums of money going to corrupt leaders like Mugabe.

[support the strivers]

why on earth is it a good thing to protect the wasteful, socialised, non productive health service?

[Malcolm Dunn]

Anyone thinking the BBC has gone soft on the Conservatives should look at the way they've reported this story on their website and the incredibly unflattering picture of Osborne they've published.

[RichardJ]

"Osborne has just promised to cut public spending instead of raising taxes"

Good. It's just a pity he's ring-fencing foreign aid (don't really agree with ring-fencing the NHS either but that may at least win some brownie points with the electorate).

[resident leftie]

This a better Tory policy, although I'm surprised about the oversaeas aid and ring fencing the NHS. Surely he must think there is a some flab there? What about all those managers?

We are now seeing more of a distinction between the parties on tax and spending. IHT cuts and reduced spending on social services, education, defense, public transport and all the other wasteful public sector departments. But really, 5bn pounds? That's all he could come up with? It's pathetic.

As for the picture on the BBC website, it's the first one where Osborne appears to be older than 12, so you should be pleased.

[Comstock]

Alan Summ said "Tax pays for public salaries so public employees are a drain on the real tax payers "

Which is a bit like saying 'shelf stackers are a drain on supermarket shoppers'......it's a meaningless statement.

"Only if welfare benefits for the unemployed civil servants cost more than employing them will it become a problem "

Quite apart from the human cost of unemployment, and the pointlessness of having trained/skilled people languishing on the dole, if the government lays off a load of workers, they will have considerably less money spend. This will not help the economy. It's simple economics.

[Comstock]

Sorry, should say 'considerably less money TO spend'

[ToryBlog.com --> Not a roon]

"Which is a bit like saying 'shelf stackers are a drain on supermarket shoppers'......it's a meaningless statement.

Not at all.

Assuming 8k in benefit, 10.5k in tax, if someone on 40k in the private sector loses the job, the bill to taxpayers is 18.5k (8k benefits + loss of 10.5k tax), whereas if someone on 40k in the public sector loses their job, the taxpayer actually *saves* 21.5k (40k salary saving less 10.5k tax less 8k benefits)

So if one 40k job has to go, private or public sector, sacking the public sector worker would have a relative gain of 40k (18.5 loss vs 21.5 gain).

[Cleethorpes Rock]

Can we scrap the Foreign Aid budget, use £800m to buy the Queen a new Royal Yacht and a 32 Sqn Airbus A380, with the other £9.2bn being given back to us in lower taxes?

[Comstock]

ToryBlog, I strongly suspect those calculations are oversimplistic at best, as they fail to take into account the loss of spending power to the economy.

They also assume the 21.5 'gain' of which you speak is passed on to taxpayers, and that they then spend it in a way which benefits the UK economy (as opposed to spending it on e.g. slave labour manufactured tat from third world sweatshops)

Anyway the vast majority of public sector jobs pay less than 40k, often considerably less.

[Comstock]

"Can we scrap the Foreign Aid budget, use £800m to buy the Queen a new Royal Yacht and a 32 Sqn Airbus A380,"

So let me get this straight, Cleethorpes Rock. You want to take money from some of the poorest people in the world and spend it on private yachts and aircraft for one of the richest?

Have I got that right?

[Hysteria]

Overseas Aid ?

Ok - maybe the number is not zero - there are some defence benefits in keeping some aid flowing - but China FFS?

[ToryBlog.com - Not a roon]

"ToryBlog, I strongly suspect those calculations are oversimplistic at best, as they fail to take into account the loss of spending power to the economy."

Comstock, not at all. As you previous post noted, it is simple economics, that there is a net gain to taxpayers if the benefits provided to an unemployed public sector worker are less than the salary they received.

I agree, that ex-public sector person will lose most of their spending power, but seeing as that spending power has been taken out of the economy from private sector employees in taxation to pay him in the first place, there is a loss to that person, but not the economy.

In short, there is a massive gain to the economy by reducing the size of the public sector.

[Richard R]

Given that we have to borrow to spend, why are we still spending money on overseas aid? Why can't the countries that need aid borrow it themselves?

[Cleethorpes Rock]

Robert Mugabe, Hu Jintao and the Director of Pakistan's nuclear weapons programme are not some of the poorest people in the world, Comstock.

Maybe some of the £9.2bn that is given back to the people will go to charity, and probably be a damn sight more effective in their hands than in Douglas Alexander's.

[another richard]

"Overseas aid? And they wonder why the BNP is gaining traction.

Posted by: Cleethorpes Rock | April 17, 2009 at 09:25"

+1

[pp]

Comstock

Think of it like this - public sector employees doing things that aren't wanted/needed are already on benefits - taxpayers money is given to them, while the pretend to look busy.

However their 'benefits' are far higher(/more expensive) than those given to anyone else others, and they are not looking for (or even available to) take up real wealth creating work.

A problem is that an older generation were (rightly) embarrassed about being 'on the social', so there was a government social engineering program to tell people (particularly old people) that 'you are entitled to your benefits, you have already paid for them' - the second part of this message has been lost ('you have already paid for them'), and the message is being given to people who need absolutely no encouragement to sponge off the taxpayer.

The wealth creating private sector taxpayer is shown absolutely no respect for supporting the rest of this top heavy socialist experiment. In fact they are treated with contempt - while the spongers and hangers on take pride in the fact they are rewarded for being unproductive.

Just as orwells '1984' seems to be coming to pass, the government of ayn rands 'atlas shrugged' is taking shape here too.

[Winston C]

I don't see any virtue in making these ring fencing committments.In reality all areas of public expenditure should be targeted to yield efficiencies.

It is simply incredible to me that the NHS can not be reformed to drive better control of budgets.Reforms which enable the service to better serve the consumer rather than the powerful trade union interests would be an essential first step.

The pasat 12 years has seen record growth in health spending and are we really happy with the bang for our buck? perhaps we should ask the people of Stafford or the nurse whistle blower from Sussex so recently struck off.

The next government should not look uncritically at the NHS.It spends too great a share of a national wealth for that.It is time to demonstrate that improved efficiency better financial control and patient care are not incompatible.

[Allan]

I would chop the overseas aid budget entirely...

The major reason being that the CDC (Britain's Overseas Development fund) is now essentially run like a private investment house pouring money into projects that generate higher returns than true aid projects.

These high returns of course allow enormous bonuses to be paid to CDC management. This scandal has been covered repeatedly in Private Eye (issue 1212 for instance).

Never mind the issue of how aid is spent in general or the effect it has on the rulers that receive it.

Short of cash? Why not simply close all those tax loopholes and shut down all the tax havens in UK controlled territory?

Say for instance to gain non-dom'd, status you can only spend 10 days in the UK in one 365 day period. Then perhaps individuals such as Lord Rothermere might pay their fair shair of tax (PE's 1231 1232, 1233).

That would surely be a vote winner for the man in the street and also gain billions for the Exchequer! Or doesn't G.O have the balls to suggest that in case it upsets some powerful 'supporters'?

If there are no guts for it publicly, then stay quiet until your in power and then do it. Maybe perform a 'Brownite job' and hint if needs be at a windfall tax on the utilities. Then grab the cash. Ignore the whining shareholders. They'll take the short term pain.

And turn the screw on the boards. They want (more) honours. Make 'em work for them.

That wins votes; people are struggling to pay billsand see companies make huge profits....while G.O witters on about the aid budget.

Sod the aid budget, if needs be spend it in the UK. When (or if) the Tory government finally gets its hands on the piggy bank be daring.

[Freddy]

GO's statement was well timed. If it wasn't you can bet that it would have been covered in the BBC 10 o'clock news, and Newsnight.

For goodness sake! He is a rising star and an experienced politician - don't try and tell him his job - that is why he is in the shadow cabinet and some of you are reduced to commenting on this website!!

[Allan]

Freddy,

Respectfully, given that he is spending my money, I think I've a right to pass an opinion on how my money is spent.

I seem to recall that a Tory once said, "...it's not government money, it's taxpayers money we're spending..."

Perhaps all of our current crop of politicians would do well to remember that.

[Steve Tierney]

>>before we get the Chancellor the country needs." Clark?<<

Ye gods, NOOOOOOOOOO.

Redwood.

[Steve Tierney]

Freddie Said:-
>>For goodness sake! He is a rising star and an experienced politician - don't try and tell him his job - that is why he is in the shadow cabinet and some of you are reduced to commenting on this website!!<<

Nobody knows everything, Freddie. Most posters here are intelligent experienced people. They are just as likely to have something worth saying as the shadow chancellor is.

There's nothing "reduced" about commenting on this website any more than people are "reduced" when they talk about current affairs with their colleagues. You sound like a pompous ass when you make comments like that. Or worse... you sound 'Labour'.

[Richard Calhoun]

I haven't read all the comments here but I am sure there is the usual heavy criticism of Team Cameron/Osborne..... however you have to give to these two??

They have I believe timed to perfection their announcement of spending cuts, the public have at last realised that it has been their money that has been paying for Labour's public spending binge, and worse still that their is precious little to show for it.