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

[Super Blue]

Can people not spell a man's name correctly when it is in the thread title?

[Anne]

We could save BILLIONS each and every year if we came out of the very expensive EU. Do it. If we remain in the EU, we will make the EU Regions work in the same way Parliament has lost control of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. ALL THREE ARE EU REGIONS, start giving them their new name, for they really are EU Regions.The EU has just given, according to Alex Salmond, quite a lot of money, which our Parliament cannot prevent or say what it should be spent on. With EU Regions we do not need the very expensive and uncontrollable Governments or Parliaments housed in the Houses of Parliament. The way things are going, let us be honest, the people simply cannot afford to pay for ALL those EU Regions, and a full complement of MP's that can no longer govern and most certainly not a House of Lords, and I am betting they will not eventually

[Anne]

We could save BILLIONS each and every year if we came out of the very expensive EU. Do it. If we remain in the EU, we will make the EU Regions work in the same way Parliament has lost control of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. ALL THREE ARE EU REGIONS, start giving them their new name, for they really are EU Regions.The EU has just given, according to Alex Salmond, quite a lot of money, which our Parliament cannot prevent or say what it should be spent on. With EU Regions we do not need the very expensive and uncontrollable Governments or Parliaments housed in the Houses of Parliament. The way things are going, let us be honest, the people simply cannot afford to pay for ALL those EU Regions, and a full complement of MP's that can no longer govern and most certainly not a House of Lords, and I am betting they will not eventually.

[Ben Stevenson]

Despite some of the big charities taking political views that I disagree with, I would prefer international aid to go through private charities.
Generosity to the poor is a good thing, and it doesn't make sense to oppose government aid on the basis of Britain needing the money more - we are still one of the richest countries on earth. However, aid given via the government risks being inefficient (lots of conferences in nice hotels for experts, rather than actual aid), and also risks not being focused on meeting the most pressing needs, but on serving political agendas. If given the choice of how to use money to best help the world's poor, I would not give money to DfID to spend it.

[Anne]

How do you feel now that the Government has signed to this agreement. EU Directive in the Official Journal of Journal of the European Union C 321/6. 31/12 2003-which is a binding Commitment- with the following heading:
“Agreement between the Member States of the European Union concerning the status of military and civilian staff seconded to the institutions of the European Union, of the headquarters and forces which may be made available to the European Union in the context of the preparation and execution of tasks referred to in Article 17(2) of the Treaty on European Union, including exercises, and of the military and civilian staff of the Member States put at the disposal of the European Union to act in this context (EU SOFA) Brussels, 17 November 2003”. Which had been presented to Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs by Command of Her Majesty, March 2009.

Maastricht was, as far as i remember ratified by the Conservatives, and here is what Article 17 2 states,:"The common security and defence policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides. It shall in that case recommend to the Member States the adoption of such a decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements". Of course as we all know, the whole of article 17 applies. and if Lisbon becomes activates, article 188r will also apply, here as a reminder is what THAT states, "Article 188R. The Solidarity Clause. A new article which introduces a new and wide-ranging “solidarity clause” which compels the Member states to act together in the event of a natural disaster or a terrorist attack”, which we, as an independent and once sovereign Nation have always done-though by asking any sovereign state first if they would like assistance.

This “Agreement” document regarding our forces appears not to be the same as regards our involvement with NATO, where some members have not taken part in all conflicts. The Solidarity clause in the previous paragraph and article 17 from the Maastricht Treaty (Treaty on Union) make clear the commitment made by the Nation States. Those countries that joined the Union after Maastricht, accepted in the joining all the previous EU Treaties.

Does the Conservative Party still want to remain in the EU knowing that what is proposed are very controversial constitutional matters? Are we to forever in the future honour EU Treaties and/or EU Constitution whilst ignoring our very own Common law Constitution? Are you prepared to tell the people that fact?

[Simon]

So Osborne is going to ringfence aid to such pleasant establishments as Zimbabwe et al whilst my grandmother decides whether to eat or stay warm... ???

The man is not fit to hold bloody office and makes the Tories appear to be a bigger joke than they actually are.

Just how on earth has this once proud party with real courage and conviction and love for my country evolved into what it is now ???

And Osborne no doubt will have the bare faced cheek to label me a Little Englander... Well here's food for thought Mr Osborne, in the month of March over 300 people joined as paid up members of the BNP. No doubt ex Tories such as myself. You are a disgrace - however I won't complain whilst you act as a recruiting sergeant for the only party that gives a s*** about indigenous Britons.

[The Bishop Swine]

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

Well I am quite happy to continue to fund the BBC, because it is still one of the best providers of good quality documentaries, and it appeals to my Nationalism to prop it up.It does annoy me that its a bolt hole for every Pinko-commi Graduate that Ox-bridge can turn out, but we can reform it.
Foreign Aid is a different matter. I feel that far to often the monies go to the wrong people. Rather than propping up government's like that in Rhodesia, our aid would be far better delivered by a sea born invasion. Once we have outed the "ruling party", we should of course extract the cost of providing the help, from the local population in the form of taxation. If the pinko's want us to extend our welfare state to these countries then I suggest they find a way of taxing the local population to pay for it.