Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

Tories' pledge on cuts criticised

Andrew Grice
Monday 29 March 2010 19:00 EDT
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Economic experts questioned the Conservative Party's proposal to cut £6bn from public spending later this year to allow David Cameron to halt Labour's planned rise in national insurance contributions (NICs) in a year's time.

The Tories announced yesterday that they would find £12bn through government efficiency savings in the 2010-11 financial year if they win the general election. Measures would include freezing major new information technology contracts and not filling vacancies among backroom staff.

The plan to rely on greater efficiency is a significant U-turn by Mr Cameron and the shadow Chancellor George Osborne. They believe the Tories lacked credibility at the 2005 election when they relied on billions of pounds of such savings to fund proposed tax cuts. Mr Cameron said in 2008: "The government 'efficiency drive' is one of the oldest tricks in the book. The trouble is, it's nearly always just that – a trick."

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) warned that the proposed £6bn cuts might be just as "economically costly" as the planned NICs rise. "Using these spending cuts to finance the NICs cut means they are not available to contribute to the task of reducing government borrowing that the Conservatives have set such store by," said the IFS. "By cutting spending next year [2010-11] and delivering the tax cuts a year later, the Conservative proposal would take additional spending power out of the economy at a time at which the recovery is likely to be at its most fragile."

John Philpott, chief economic adviser at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, said: "It is squeezing the economy at a time when it is relatively weak, and taking some of the pressure off after the general election and beyond." He said that neither party offered a particularly credible package.

The Tories said their £5.6bn "tax cut" would mean everyone earning between £7,100 and £45,400 would be up to £150 a year better off. NICs paid by employers would be reduced by up to £150 for every worker with a salary of more than £5,700.

Their proposed £12bn of savings had been validated by two experts who until recently advised the Government on waste: Sir Peter Gershon, who carried out a major efficiency review for Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor, and Dr Martin Read, who reviewed back-office functions.

Although the Tories could not provide details of specific savings, they promised to freeze major new IT spending; reduce the £200bn-a-year spend on private sector suppliers by negotiating reductions from suppliers; get a tighter control of public sector recruitment; reduce discretionary spending such as expenses claims; and cut public sector property costs.

Savings in the health, defence and overseas aid budgets will not be earmarked for filling the gap created by scrapping the NICs rise.

Join our 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 inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in