Indian bicycle manufacturers (2)

Continuing my occasional series, which is based on the thesis that the three main parties' policies are in fact more-or-less identical. In a perverse way, this explains why they do not defend themselves against the smears of the other parties - it is called double-negative advertising.

Take for example, George Osborne's speech to the BCC, which included this gem: ... our Prime Minister was also warned in the fat years to prepare for the lean years – but he set nothing aside. Now most say the lean years are here, the cupboard is bare and is vulnerable.

(Now, the simple truth, as revealed by St John of Redwood is far more reassuring than that: [we could] contain the public debt, gain much better value for money from each pound spent by government, and leave sufficient of the proceeds of growth for tax reductions. Technically it is not difficult to do all three, as the waste and undesirable spending is so large.)

However, he is a lone voice crying in the wilderness, people listen to the Shadow Chancellor. And what do they hear?

To potential Tory voters, this sounds like "Labour are the high tax'n'spend party; by reverse logic we are the party that would like to cut taxes, but we can't for the time being because the 'cupboard is bare'. But we will do one day, honest." So they are encouraged to vote Tory

To potential Labour voters, this sounds like "Tories are the Nasty Party who want to 'slash public spending'. If we vote Labour, then at least we'll get our schools'n'hospitals and benefits. Or keep our jobs administering benefits and running endless quangoes."

Which is why Labour have no interest in pointing out that the Tories have promised to 'match Labour's spending plans'*, or to point out that the cupboard is not actually bare at all; despite the massive % tax burden, over-regulation and waste, total tax receipts are colossal, the public debt-to-GDP isn't that terrible by historical standards (if you exclude public sector pensions) and there is plenty of scope for reductions in wasteful public spending, as much as £100 billion per annum (i.e. about one-fifth of all spending!), because that would either:
a) make potential Labour voters more likely to vote Tory; or
b) show Labour up for the greedy, inefficient crooks that they are.

* Or point out that the welfare system is not much different from what they inherited in 1997. Benefits have been renamed and repackaged, but it's the same old crap with the same old perverse incentives, poverty trap and anti-marriage bias.