Labour gets jitters over 'Tory cuts' message
Ministers doubt the Prime Minister's line of attack as critics say party must accept big spending days are over
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Labour is to refine its warnings about "Tory cuts" amid signs that Gordon Brown's mantra is making little impact with the public.
Ministers admit the widespread impression among voters that cuts in spending will be needed to balance the nation's books has blunted the Prime Minister's attacks on David Cameron and his party.
In a tacit admission that big savings will have to be made whoever wins the general election, Labour will claim there is a "fundamental difference in instinct and ambition" between the two main parties. It will accuse Mr Cameron of following a Thatcherite policy of "unfair" tax and spending cuts, while arguing that Labour's instinct is to protect frontline public services. Ministers hope that a return to economic growth by the end of this year will enable them to be more optimistic about future levels of spending on health and education by the election, expected next spring.
The Cabinet has discussed updating Mr Brown's traditional dividing line of "investment versus cuts" dividing line at its recent meetings. Although ministers denied there was a row at yesterday's weekly session, there were reports that some members had called for new language such as "targeted investment" rather than "spending", and put more focus on the need for "efficiency savings".
Some ministers want a more realistic message which admits that Labour will not be able to continue the big rises in public spending seen in recent years.
Public scepticism about Labour's message was revealed in a ComRes poll for The Independent yesterday which showed that 31 per cent of people trust the Tories most to decide where spending cuts should be made, while only 21 per cent trust Labour most.
Alistair Darling, the Chancellor, is said to be moving towards a decision to postpone a government-wide spending review until after the election. The Tories accused Labour of covering up the need for "Labour cuts". Last night George Osborne, the shadow Chancellor, claimed the Government had denied him access to a government database on what has been spent in 12,000 key areas. This is not normally shown to opposition parties.
Mr Osborne told the BBC that only spending on health and international development would be explicitly protected by a future Tory government. Asked about other areas such as schools and the SureStart children's centres, he replied: "I am not protecting other areas at this stage."
Mr Osborne said the policy blueprint unveiled by Mr Brown on Monday was already unravelling, amid doubts over how the flagship pledge to boost housebuilding by councils and housing associations would be funded. "Gordon Brown's latest relaunch has disintegrated into chaos and shambles," he said. "This is because he is not being honest about spending. While Cabinet ministers are arguing over whether or not to tell the truth, international bodies are tearing apart Labour's fiscal policy. This relaunch has been exposed as being more about propping up Gordon Brown's future than about the future of Britain."
But Liam Byrne, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, accused Mr Osborne of making an "utterly misleading allegation" about access to information "to distract attention from the fact that he would cut SureStart and cut schools spending."
The Department of Communities and Local Government insisted that the prposals for an extra 20,000 affordable homes over the next two years were fully funded.
John Denham, the Communities Secretary, will today defend controversial plans to change the way social housing is allocated so councils can give greater priority to local people. That has prompted criticism that Labour is fuelling untrue allegations that immigrants are jumping the housing queue.
Mr Denham will argue Labour's traditional approach to "fairness" is "out of touch" with the public mood and that it needs to be "in tune with the robust, tough, but popular view of fairness held by the British people". He will tell the Fabian Society that the left would have to trust people's instincts, which is why he is giving more say to local people in deciding how social housing allocations.
Labour needs to stop defining – even inadvertently – the bottom social groups against the middle classes, he will argue. "We need to stop implying that we are chiefly on the side of the poorest and most deprived in society but instead develop a language which is more inclusive," he will say.
Labour's four tops: Hitting the same note?
Gordon Brown
Had to abandon plan to install close ally Ed Balls as Chancellor in the emergency reshuffle after an attempted coup by Labour MPs. Reluctant to admit that capital spending would fall under Labour, fearing that doing so would blunt his attack on "Tory cuts". Under pressure to change his line to make the general election a choice between which party can be trusted to make "fair" savings.
Alistair Darling
Rebuffed Brown's attempt to prise him out of the Treasury. Favours more open approach than Brown about need for spending cuts after 2011 to balance nation's books. Has not made final decision to delay comprehensive spending review until after election but moving that way. Embroiled in row with Bank of England over regulatory system for banks.
Ed Balls
Long-standing goal of becoming Chancellor thwarted by Alistair Darling in reshuffle. Accused of flexing muscles since then to further his Labour leadership ambitions. Called for an inquiry into the Iraq war to be as open as possible. Has predicted that Labour would continue to raise spending on education and health after 2011 – a view the Treasury declined to endorse as plans are not yet set in stone.
Lord Mandelson
Biggest winner in the reshuffle, helping Brown see off plotters. Became First Secretary and head of Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. Honed the "Building Britain's Future" blueprint, but sparked confusion by predicting comprehensive spending review would be postponed until after general election, which Treasury refused to confirm.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Indeed, and don't forget all the outsourcing of work, to India especially, on the IT front, where the safety of information is much more at risk than here, and God knows it is bad enough in Britain. Also, how many times does one ring up some business or other to find you are talking to someone in India, to whom one is trying to explain some event or problem thousands of miles away from them.
Eventually, when Mandy decides to call an election, he will publish an election manifesto, setting out his promises, but anyone who believes what is written there would have to mad or stupid, or both to believe a word of it given what happened to previous manifestos: 1) There will be no privatisation of the Royal Mail 2) there will be a referendum on Europe 3) there will be no increase of the top tax bracket etc etc etc
For what it is worth, I have come to realise that this hideous regime is probably the worst one we have ever had. Why ?
You know I don't think he will call an election. I think he will hold Brown up until the Irish vote on The Lisbon Treaty and the EU are making certain promises that could well be ditched afterwards, so it could be a 'Yes' vote. That done Brown will probably resign on health reasons and he and Mandy will sail off to Europe leaving us and the Labour party in the proverbial shite.
I've reached the conclusion that whoever gets into power will simply act to protect their rich chums at the expense of everyone else. Mind you, I also think the welfare state does need an exhaustive overhaul - the benefits system, hospitals and schools - but I doubt any political party will give it serious consideration. Instead they'll be a series of 'reforms' which will make the systems more cumbersome and the ministers less accountable.
- Give the people what they want. But we shall see who pays for it: those who can least afford it.
That will be the firms that rely in credit for their very existence? The firms that don't rely on quality and marketability of product and viability perhaps. Don't rant rubbish that someone else told you it makes you look stupid.
Nor did I, it was obviously far too subtle. I will have to try harder...
Indeed chaps25, re robin- rouge and his rant,I would add that any, any, any government could not be anywhere near as bad as this despicable, shame-free, conniving, lying, treacherous, squalid, seedy, self-serving bunch of cretins.
Could this be why only 16% of those voting in the European elections trusted Labour, and 84% do not ?
roland
However, the problem with Labour's message is Brown and not so much what they are all saying. The public no longer believe him so whatever he says, however true it might be, the fact that the words come from im will make people disbelieve it and go elsewhere. Many Labour MPs realise this but have been bullied into keeping Brown and thus they can expect to lose their jobs next election. Fortunately for them they will have a fabulous pension and beyond belief pay-off all from teh taxpayer. Lucky them.
roland
We are out of guns stocks of foods water, bread, we are now begging for everything including lies.
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla
No choice in the matter.
Their trying to spin their way out of it.
And at the same time figure out a way to find the payroll vote money.
It's not there anymore.
Youv'e blown it all.
OOPS.