Andrew Grice: Why politicians are still reluctant to mention the d-word

The problem is that voters want action to 'tackle the deficit' but not if it affects them directly.

Tuesday 27 April 2010 19:24
Comments

The political parties often accuse each other of treating the voters like “fools” or “mugs”. After the MPs’ expenses scandal, such language plays well. Yet politicians are open to the charge of treating the public like fools when it comes to the number one challenge facing Britain.

The options for cutting this year’s £163bn deficit in the public finances should be a key issue of the election campaign. But MPs have conspired to delay discussion of the inevitable pain until after May 6. If the election had not been dominated by the leaders’ television debates, the parties would have come under more pressure to spell out detailed cuts before today’s landmark report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

But even before the first TV battle, it was clear that our politicians were reluctant to mention the d-word – deficit—other than giving general pledges to tackle it. They were happy to talk about “efficiency savings” but were anxious to maintain the fiction that these would allow “front-line services” to be protected. To be fair, the Liberal Democrats outlined £15bn of cuts, although £5bn of that would be spent.

There wasn’t a secret deal but Labour and the Tories arrived at the same point: austerity isn’t working. George Osborne, the shadow Chancellor, tested the market by spelling out some cuts at the Tory conference last October - including a pay freeze for some public sector workers and restricting tax credits and child trust funds for better off families. Mr Osborne won plaudits for bravery in the City of London. But the Tories took a hit in the opinion polls and – surprise, surprise - Labour accused them of clobbering middle income families. The Tories are still committed to these cuts but have been reluctant to add to the list.

Given the likely Labour reaction, you can hardly blame them. Yet the Tories abandoned the moral high ground by claiming that they could reverse most of Labour’s planned rise in national insurance contributions next year by conjuring up another £12bn of “efficiency savings” – with no detail provided.

Cuts are only half the picture. It is obvious that taxes will have to rise too. Yet the Tories prefer to talk about tax cuts - to reward marriage, reduce corporation and inheritance tax and block the NICs rise. They have “no secret plan” to raise VAT but their party has form.

The problem is that voters want action to “tackle the deficit” but not if it affects them directly. Six million people work in the public sector; many fear for their jobs. So the politicians serve up the motherhood and apple pie of efficiency savings and delay the menu of unpalatable options until the ballot boxes are sealed. It is a pity they could not have conspired in a more honest debate instead.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in