History repeating itself ...

Bayard left this comment on my post "If David Cameron had a pledge card...":

'Twas ever thus. Twenty or so years ago my mother was on the County Council and she was always complaining that the Tories "fiddled around the edges", making lots of little cuts to lots of little budgets, but leaving all the big stuff untouched. Maximum perceived action, minimum actual effect.

Which links in nicely to George Osborne's latest bright ideas:

The Conservatives would start to cut public spending straight away if they won the General Election, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said... he said spending on advertising and tax credits for people earning more than £50,000 would be cut. He also identified child trust funds for better-off families as an area where savings could be made.

Sure, we can save maybe a billion quid by scrapping government advertising. A good start. But the 'savings' to be made by cutting tax credits and child trust funds (whether or not you agree in principle) for 'higher earners' (as defined) would amount to £10 million or £100 million (total Tax Credits paid out £15 billion-odd, times random small percentage), and you'd have to net off the extra admin and hassle of clawing it back. So, having had years to think about it, he's come up with plans to reduce the annual public sector deficit by slightly less than one per cent.

Liam Byrne is on top form, managing yet again to contradict himself several times in one short soundbite:

Responding to the speech, Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne said in his "rush to cut spending, George Osborne would put the recovery in grave danger (1). But until he says how he'll do it (2) and whether he'll match Labour's pledge to halve the deficit in four years (3, 4), his speeches must be taken with a huge pinch of salt (5). This is yet another Tory speech which raises more questions than it answered (6)"

1) Does he seriously suggest that a sixth-of-one-per-cent reduction in government spending going to "put the recovery in grave danger"?

2) George Osborne did say exactly what he was planning to do.

3) Clearly, George isn't planning to "halve the deficit", which would mean reducing government spending by £50 billion to £100 billion (depending on what assumptions you make about future tax receipts).

4) From (1) we get the impression that Liam doesn't want spending to be cut. But then he suggests that his own government is going to cut spending by fifty times as much, see (3), suggesting that he does want spending to be cut. Has Liam made up his mind on this?

5) This government has managed to run out of salt, we're having to buy it back off the Germans.

6) See (2).