I believe the IMF, who Cameron frequently likes to quote, warned against endangering a recovery by cutting too soon.

And Rob, the problem with breaking the banks up is that I don’t think that would solve the problem; I believe Leyman Brothers was a retail bank, and we know what happened to it.

And in response to Rob’s comment:
“Re Tories cutting programs. Times are tough the Tories aint looking to cut these programs because they are cruel people they are looking to cut because we are running out of money.”

Well Rob, here in Nottinghamshire the Conservative administration is cutting for the sake of cutting; Labour, the Lib Dems and Unison have identified several alternative ideas for cutting budget deficits without cutting services.

And as Joe says, so far they’ve just outlined spending commitments, such as this shambles.

And, Osborne’s approach seems to be to throw the baby out with the bathwater by punishing the frontline bank staff as well; the ones who serve you and I, who cannot be blamed for this recession, whilst giving their friends in the City who can be blamed for it a tax cut by aiming to scrap the top rate of income tax!

Anyway, back to the subject…

This idea seems to have been on the ropes ever since early January when Cameron was forced to rush out 2 contradictory statements within 2 hours.

The idea’s just wrong; surely it’s not the type of family you live in, but that that family is happy that matters?

And, I fear that one unintended consequence is that a couple could try and stay together when it’s not working, with negative consequences for family members involved, such as domestic violence; I am not sure the last Tory government took that problem seriously.

I think the report in the Daily Mirror is the icing on the cake.

Neither parties have outlined everything, and until we have more detail on the economy it would be inadvisable, granted. But the Tories have never revealed anything but a mess of contradictory aspirations in both philosophy and policy; trying to have the best of both worlds. I know that George Osborne wants immediate and deep cuts (of which we have no idea of his priorities) followed by a public pay freeze. I but I also know the Tories have also promised some 23 billion in spending promises…

Martian Kettle spells things out pretty well; http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/21/deficit-cuts-conservatives-labour-election

I think Mandy’s position is more flexible than you suggest; a strategic economic strategy is more Keynesian than liberal after all. Anyways, I should get back to some real work myself… nice talking to you Rob.

Ah, just read your later post, and yes there was a tax-credit cock up, I would defend the policy, but the way it went wrong in that instance is something different!

New Deal- Going down the right road, one of labours good achievments.
Tax Credits – An idea that went badly wrong. Have had personel experience of how these can go wrong in my family. Through no fault of your own you can get a letter demanding thousands back in over paid credit. A better idea would have been targeted tax cuts so people in such positions could keep a larger preportion of their own money.

Re tories cutting programs. Times are tough the tories aint looking to cut these programs because they are cruel people they are looking to cut because we are running out of money.

Fortunately most people want to work and Labour have done a good job with the New Deal, family tax credits (ignoring some of the administrative cock-ups) and the recent promise of a young person’s work guarantee. Far better than just telling people to get on their bikes. It’s also a relief that unemployment hasn’t spiralled out of control like in the recessions of the early nineties and eighties. Other schemes like Sure Start are important in the long run; targeted help for young families (married or not) in deprived areas. The Tories are still unclear on whether they’ll keep that one going, but surely it makes more sense than a tax break for married couples?

I disagree that the philosophies of the leading figures in labour are that minor. I think especially with mandelson/brown there is a clear substantial difference of out look. Brown is old school labour keynsian with some real class issues going on. Whereas mandy is economically liberal i think his aproach to economics would not sit uncomftably with the soft centre tory position. Admitadly the diffrences between brown/darling are more about how to aproach the issue than they are real deep divisions. Brown wants to put off the cuts wheras darling is all up for talking about public sector pay cuts and the need for structual changes in the budgets.

Regarding the tory position. Yes i think it is a little fuzy but such is the way in a long ellection season. You never run strong and heavy early on otherwise you leave your flanks open. That said i think they have painted a broad picture of what needs to be done regarding cutting the budget. They were brave to short step labour and come out first regarding cutting but they have not been brave about what the cuts will mean. I think they underestimate the resolve of the british people and our ability to deal with unpalatable truths.

Regarding uncosted promises. Most of your post was strong i disagreed with it but it was consistant, this last point wasnt. If you measure a politician on his ability to adequatly cost his preposals then cameroon thrashs brown. What happened to the national care service or all the splurging that went on in the Labour confrence. Or even telling departments what they are going to have in the next couple of years. Brown is trying to string the british along by promising us that this wont hurt and it just dosnt stand up.

To find differences between Brown, Mandelson and Darling is a little hair splitting; any Government navigating such difficult economic waters is bound to have some disagreements. They have a difficult job explaining the complex economic situation in simple terms (when previously it had been very easy) and Brown and Darling are hardly the best communicators!

At least the government’s position on the economy is now pretty clear, or as clear as it can be given current uncertainties. A return to growth and a deficit reduction plan over four years that protects essential services. The conservative alternative is still mysterious; a long list of uncosted promises they’ve yet to be clear on, yet with calls for fiscal responsibility that is put in similarly vague terms. Maybe they’ll do a good job on working out all the contradictions, but with the example of the marriage tax break (back on topic…) that’s clearly not the case so far.