Business leaders' letter: Three points of substance

Well at least we're not relying on NR's arithmetical abilities. Three points of substance? I only count two (and even they aren't all that substantial).

You are not an economist or a businessman so like everyone else you just have to decide who you're going to believe. In your case you've decided to believe the Labour Party version.

The narrative unfurling here is that a Labour government will tax you more and spend more of your money. A tory government will tax you less leaving you to spend more of your own money.
I think I can spend my own money better than the government can and is that not a stimulus as well?

In truth, it's impossible for anyone to know whether the government or the Tories will realise the savings they're aiming for. What can be said with confidence is that, if they do, it will still mean real people losing real jobs (try telling a redundant IT worker or someone in finance that their job loss is an "efficiency saving").

--------------------

And an increase in NI will lead to fewer jobs in the private sector.

Not saying its easy Nick, but surely at the moment the priority has to be aiding productivity in the wealth generating sector. In the long term, its the only way out, and we should not be perpetuating expenditure that is not needed if it could potentially stall recovery.

£1.4 trillion national debt.
Public sector is not going to reduce it, the private sector is. We need economic growth and so any incentive for business is welcome.

Suggest you visit this website to see how easy it would be to bring in private sector business disciplines to the public sector
https://dogw.co.uk/

Slagging off the people who you are going to rely on to get the UK out of the hole we are in is not on.
Who would I trust more? Successfull UK business leaders or a politican who was twice ousted from goverment for dubious practices? This is almost as bad as smearing the defence chiefs.

Er.... and the third distinct issue being?

Was it meant to be this one?

"The election judgement will come down to voters' instinctive sense of whether they believe politicians are being honest, share their values and trust in their competence."

Honestly. Cant get the staff.

Bring back Kuenssberg.

And the third issue?

You end "The election judgement will come down to voters' instinctive sense of whether they believe politicians are being honest, share their values and trust in their competence."

My instincts are clear: politicians are not honest, have no values and lack competence.

Politicians of all parties have a very long way to go before I shall be convinced otherwise.

My vote awaits the individual who presents a reasoned assessment of how the current situation is to be addressed, including which core services are to be preserved, how much doing so will cost and where that money will come from.

Or it may go to someone who thinks outside the box: maybe they should apply for an IVA - ruin the UK's credit rating but pay off what we can afford in a timely manner. Now there's an idea.... :)

Labour accusing anyone of deceiving people is a bit rich as well. On the day we once again have proof of Brown using misleading figures regarding net immigration. Asside from the actual numerical deception, there is also the failure to mention that economic migrants are currently deserting this sceptered isle to return to their economically sounder home countries. So slowing immigration is largely down to his failure to look after our economy, not any specific policy he has implemented.

And consider, if you will, that these 23 letter writers are almost certainly the intellectual superiors of Mandelson, Brown and Darling, or for that matter Osbourne and Cameron. Not the sort to be easily deceived I think.

Businessmen against a tax on business! What a surprise. Maybe someone should look at the taxes allocated in support of businesses and see if any efficiencies can be found in that pot of gold. The private sector is hardly private.

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

There is no length that President Mandelson will go to he is the biggest spin merchant and frankly dose not speak the truth at all times. These business leaders are correct its a tax on jobs. Its not a Tax cut the conseritives are not implementing a Labour tax rise . Yes money will have to be found to pay for it but if it helps stimulate more growth in the private sector it will pay for itself . Thats why the business laedres like it . There are big savings that can and will be made in the public sector as having worked there for twenty years I know how old outdated tendering and practices have got worse in the last 13years . As a middle manager its was impossible to get things modernised away form big central suppliers and goverment backed unions

What was your third point !!. Perhaps it is that Mandleson is correct in pointing out that Tory policy is what the business leaders want to hear, which is the same as their approach for the electorate. "Just say what will win votes and get power". "We will deal with the public after the election". Norman Lamont was on R4's world at one saying " THe public dont need to know where public spending will be cut !, That is the business of government whih will be decided after the election. Same old Tories Nick !

That's three issues is it, Nick? You can certainly count like a member of the Labour party! It's also a little late for an April Fools joke (unless you've been awaiting moderation for over two hours like the rest of us do I suppose...)

Personally I'm with the 23 leading businessmen, even if you do dismiss most of them as Tories. At the end of the day they are successful mainly as a result of understanding the economic market, which is more than Brown, Darling, or Mandleson can claim.

And anyone who thinks there is no scope for massive efficiency savings in the public sector obviously has never had any first hand dealings with it at all.

Any chance of the third point being published?

More smoke and mirrors from Mandelson & Co.

No-one yet seems to have caught on that NI increases also have to be paid by the Public Sector.

That's a 1% increase for every public sector employee paid for by you guessed it 'The Private Sector'.

I have no figures but I suspect that is an enormous additional amount on the wagebill of the Public Sector when they are supposed to be looking at efficiencies.

Can Mandelson and Darling give figures please and does this mean even more job cuts in the future?

I'm sorry for you labour lot thinking everyone else out here was stupid.

Do you want the truth, Nick? The real truth?
Well, I don’t know if you can handle the real truth (This is from a movie I once saw; so, please don't take it personally.)
No party in the UK can climb outside the cardboard box, admit there is nothing inside the box, and scrounge for "new" answers. The solutions being offered are old
- raise taxes
- lower taxes
- play with taxes till next election.
I keep yelling at my TV screen, yelling: “I’m mad as Hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!” (Also from a movie I once saw.)
The people who got us into this financial mess were/are the Wall-Street-types, the bail-out boys, and these guys are still free-wheeling in unregulated derivatives and default swaps.
So, all political parties need to get out of the empty box and think how to squeeze BIG money out of those people who caused the rest of us to fall into financial chaos. It may also be a good idea to exert pressure on the responsible country(s) to regulate these free-wheelers.
I have proposed and I will continue to propose a Tobin Tax (on all foreign financial transactions).
Why?
Because the tax falls on the Wall-Street financial wizards who created this chaos in the first place.
Because the taxes raised will be huge. It has been estimated that a tax as small as 0.5% would raise billions annually.
Because countries will then have a little cash for such things as NHS and social spending.

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

'no clever uses of statistics at rival news conferences can resolve the question of whether you should trust this or that party'

True. You simply have to look at the way New Labour, Gordon Brown, Lord Mandleson have lied, cheated and conned for the last 13 years to realise they are the biggest bunch of crooks ever to govern this country.

What, though, of the substance of the argument? (If you're not interested in the detail, I suggest you skip to the conclusion!)

What an odd thing to write! Why not suggest that that advice is for people who are a bit, but not very interested. People who are really interested should read it all, and people who aren't interested at all should go away and read Robert Peston's blog.
I hope you don't mind me saying, but you're a little bit wierd sometimes Nick.

Who are you going to believe? A bunch of career politicians who were caught with their hands in the till or a bunch of career businessmen who understand the complexities of managing vast business empires? I wanted to trust the labour party, I really wanted there to be some honest socialists in the party, I don't see any. Trust is gone.

3 key points? I can only see 2! Wheres point 3 Nik?

Efficiency savings are when you offer the service at the current level but reduce the cost of delivering it. It may or may not involve loss of jobs. Cuts are when you reduce the level of service or cut it out all together. This will tend to reduce jobs.

Actually you can improve the service, not cut jobs, and save costs all at the same time. You may even increase income.

Been there.. done that!!

Ask the business men what will cause them to increase staff rather than just pay any savings into profits.

Answer when they find demand is so large that they have to do this do this or lose custom. Next is always empty when I go in (I don't think they can see me coming) Perhaps some efficiency savings I suggest innovation in the product line to get more custom.

Demand is actually improving in manufacturing (see today's FT ...so lets see what happens.)

NR Said: "The election judgement will come down to voters' instinctive sense of whether they believe politicians are being honest"

Yes who to believe. A prime Minister who has been caught lying on 2 separate recent occations (Iraq inquiry and immigration stats) or David Cameron.

No contest me thinks.

Anyone who has been involved in trying to bring in raised efficiencies knows it is fraught with uncertainties, unintended consequences and where one becomes quickly acquainted many devils in the detail! Inconveniently back office staff are the ones that organisations rely on to introduce new more efficient methods and what tends to happen is that efficiency savings are little more than de-staffing with speed - up or degraded quality. Efficiency savings are in the main a euphemism for cuts like the removal of a Sunday postal collection. Dont be fooled!

'The money for that has to come from somewhere and, if it can't come from efficiencies, it will come from other spending cuts or rises in other taxes'

And a large part of it will come from extra growth. Imposing a job destruction tax at a time the economy is fragile is hardly the way to lead the economy out of recession. That's why pretty much the whole of business is against it.

Some balance please - what about the links to Labour which you didn't mention - Lord Sainsbury, one of labour's biggest doners and Sir Stuart Rose a prominent member of Brown's Business Council...... ouch!

If Nick can cut his 3 substantial points down to 2 mid-blog then it should be no problem for a government to make similar efficiencies!

As stated, the difference between the Tory and Labour stated plans are well within the margins - it comes down to whether you believe Labour who oversaw the rise in government spending that apparently now can safely be culled as efficiencies and who consistently failed to meet their own tax forecasts, or want to the Tories the chance to suceed where Labour failed.

The most telling aspect about this episode is the difference in response from Mandelson and Darling; Mandelson is only ever capable of seeing party politics as a game where his team is always right. Darling on the other hand at least realises that people can still want what's right for the country whilst having differing views on how to achieve that.

The only people decieved is Mandy/Brown/Darling and co. if they think we are stupid enough to believe thier smears and spin against respected buisness leaders who disagree with Labours defunct economic policy and incompotent managment!

It is a compleate joke for them to complain about the tories saying they can make £6bn efficency savings when they are saying they have identified £11bn of savings! Or to say there is a black hole in Tory plans and they are not telling us about what they will cut when they have failed to say where they will make the £22bn of cuts they have admited they will have to make! And they have all the figures which they are denying to the oposition parties! And it's Darling/Labour that have overestimated growth figures of between 1 and 1.5% which leaves Labours/Darlings budget figures with the black hole of billons!

Do they justify their policies? Do they tell us the truth of their cuts and tax raising plans?

NO of course they dont they just smear anyone who disagrees with them or points out how misguilded they are!!!

Yes, government waste COULD be cut by £12BN, but NO it won't be.

Which ever party wins in May it is vanishly unlikely that waste in the government and the public sector generally will be cut significantly. Spending may be cut substantially, but the bias of public sector organisations and governments is always to cut front-line services and preserve management, administration and activities connected with political correctness... in other words the wasteful bits.

Partly this is simply because turkeys don't usually vote for christmas. The decisions on where to cut will be made by managers and administrators so they always see their kind of functions as being important. Politically correct posts are preserved out of cowardice about what the media backlash might be if they are removed.

The readers of this column could suggest £12BN of cuts many times over, but we aren't in government!

Considering how many lies, half truths and mis-directions, plus spin and sneaky blame shifting, that the sorry lot in residence in Westminster have asked us to swallow on Iraq, pensions, the armed forces and practically everything else, you'd have to be brain dead to believe anything they say now. Especially as they're trying to get themselves elected again. Of course, believing the other lot without a large portion of salt, might be unwise, too. However, if leading British businessmen think the Tories plans are more likely to work than Labour's, I suggest we should listen. Besides, who can stomach any more of the current bunch?

So Labour's latest strategy appears to be -

1. Introduce a job destruction tax
2. Delay implementing efficiency savings
3. Rubbish anyone who points out how absurd 1 & 2 are

If Nick wishes to run with this he could at least put the quotes at the top of the page into quotation marks.

On second thoughts he could sub-contract the blog to Mandelson - no one would notice the difference.

What's the odds that No. 10 have been frantically ringing round all day so that there will be a letter in the Guardian tomorrow from at least 60 CEOs saying that Labour views on the NI taxes are better than the Conservatives....

in other words, just like their silly response to the letter from economists the other week.

Laugh ? I nearly bought a round !!

Surely it is company profits that create jobs, not a change in NI contributions. Why all the heat on this. The Conservatives will have changed their policy again in a couple of days. After all, last week their number one priority was to begin reducing the deficit in 2010. They were adamant the government identified savings were smoke and mirrors. Today, after a dip in the polls, the number one priority is not exactly a tax cut, more a decision not to implement part of an increase in NICs; oh, and the smoke and mirror savings identified by the government are now achievable, and even some additional Tory savings, which will cover the £6bn required to pay for this changed policy, although we are not to be told where they will be made. You should not allow yourselves to become excercised about something so ephemeral. Tomorrow is another day, and another changed policy.

Sadly, although M&S, Next, Kingfisher et al, think the sun shines from George Osborne's proverbial, senior elements in the city say he is their 5th choice for Chancellor. They can't all be right, can they?

Er The Third isssue will be


The Family Courts and CAFCA-SS total reform saying money and better life chances for our children.

Labour accusing anyone of deceiving people is a bit rich as well. On the day we once again have proof of Brown using misleading figures regarding net immigration. Asside from the actual numerical deception, there is also the failure to mention that economic migrants are currently deserting this sceptered isle to return to their economically sounder home countries. So slowing immigration is largely down to his failure to look after our economy, not any specific policy he has implemented.

And consider, if you will, that these 23 letter writers are almost certainly the intellectual superiors of Mandelson, Brown and Darling, or for that matter Osbourne and Cameron. Not the sort to be easily deceived I think.

=========================================================================

Hayemaker

To be fair, at least Brown was good enough to correct his error, to the accurate figure, when being rebuked by this statistic group.

The tories have twice been crticised by the same people, for misleading the public, with statistics, and still to this day, maintain that the figures are totally right.

As for 23 business leaders, backing tax cuts to businesses?

You know, that means about as much as 23 Unite members, signing a letter saying, they back Labour policy on the public sector.

Nick @ 0 wrote:

"Labour is planning to hint that the Tories will increase VAT while not ruling out increasing it themselves."

===

So just what is the Labour strategy then? Lies and smears by the look of it.

Also, I don't recall Darling and Mandelson saying that the business leaders were being deceived last year when Sir Stuart Rose (Marks & Spencer) and Justin King (Sainsbury's) came out in favour of that other tax cut, you know, the one Labour introduced, the so-called fiscal stimulus of the temporary VAT decrease.

That cost circa £12 billion,by the way, how did Labour pay for that?

Oh yes, by rolling the printing presses with quantitative easing!

God, they're such hypocrites, and they think we are foolish enough to forget their dismal track record on truth and honesty.

I believe Lord M. said the Tories were "peddling deception".
Is the 'quack' bit his 'don't quote me' piece to you?

Nice piece of creative writing Nick, wherever the credit is due.

Ok, so let's say we make drastic cutbacks in public expenditure. Where will these be, as I have not heard how this will be happen. If it is in jobs then unemployment will rise and so will pay outs in benefits and redundancies - this will not be good. If it is in services then people receiving these services (such as soldiers fighting overseas, patients in hospitals, drivers on our motorways, students in our schools and universities, all of us receiving council services, unemployed and people receiving benefits, people making tax claims and so many more) will be adversely affected, which will in turn increase the cost of the service to each person receiving it, both financially and emotionally.

One way to raise this money would be to insist that the banks repay their loans more quickly back to the government.

The 1% raise in NI contributions is not welcomed by many of us. The minimum wage was looked upon by leading industrialists as something that would create unemployment, but it hasn't.

It is true to say that public expenditure is excessive, there are too many employed in the public sector in some areas (Whitehall is massively overstaffed and there are too many Government Departments), but this shpould be an ongoing operation for whoever is in power to work on. Because so much has been spent on the banks we need the Government to raise money to put back into the coffers. A number of Councils need to recoup money lost by investing in Iceland(Northumberland need to find at least £23million!!) and so many of us are already starting to see the results of planned cutbacks locally. It is not good that the people have to pay for the inefficiency and poor management of the people at the the top but there are many who would prefer to pay a bit extra tax than end up unemployed or never getting urgently required medical treatment. The people at the top need to take some responsibility, both in Parliament and in the offices advising the leaders and getting new people in at Whitehall could liven the place up a bit and put the comfortable departmental secretaries on their toes. Like everywhere else it should no longer be a job for the boys for life.

Brown lying to the Chilcott Enquiry, Brown attempting to mislead with false immigration statistics, and Balls lying about the number of days lost to strikes being lower under Labour; are they pathologically incapable of being honest and truthful?

Can we realistically expect "efficiency savings" to be found by inefficient, incompetent politicians and civil servants ? Caledonian Comment

The thing with Mandelson - and I think even the tory voters on here will agree - he rarely says anything, without it being part of some wider plan.

I have the feeling he's trying to group the tories and business leaders together. Fat cats.

Mandleson is a master of this sort of thing. I'm thinking he wants to create a dispute between business leaders.

So he can maybe make it:

Labour backing "average joe" with fair taxes and cuts

Tories backing "corporate fat cats"

Watch this space

There's a lot of talk about cutting public sector waste. First of all, the Gershon review undertaken a few years back did much to drive efficiency within the public sector, so many of the proposed efficiency savings have already been made. Secondly, let's assume you do start laying people off - where do they go? There's hardly a shortfall in the private sector workforce, so many of these people would simply join the (already long enough) list of benefit claimants - again, a drain on public finances. Add to that the fact that there will be less money floating around the high street and it doesn't really add up to economic recovery does it?

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for efficiency and perhaps there are more savings to be made within the public sector, but the bottom line is I would much rather pay someone for doing something useful for the country rather than put them on the bread line and pay them to look for a non-existent job in the private sector.

The fact that 2/3 voters believe the deficit can be dealt with through 'efficiency' savings is nothing more than a perfect illustration of how exceptionally negative we are as country - we constantly think the worst of each other. The assumption that public sector workers are inefficient is simply an extension of that and unlikely to be based on any kind of actual experience.

Whilst George Osborne comes across as grossly inexperienced and utterly incapable of answering a question directly, I do happen to agree that an increase in NI contributions is counter-intuitive to the recovery; better to raise taxes in other areas.

Do I trust the Tories? Not particularly. Do I think the country would vote for someone who is utterly honest about the situation we are in and what needs to be done to fix it? Not for a moment. We complain about the way they behave, but we encourage them to do it because we simply don't want to hear the truth.

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

The BBC are showing which side they are on......what has Gordy threatened?....making the Beeb even more 'state controlled'?.

Flipper Darling uses quite unrealistic "forecasts" of future growth in the economy to try and explain how Labour will reduce the deficit they caused (i.e. slow down the rate at which we are borrowing more money)and his masterplan to get the economy moving again is:

1) a further tax on jobs

2) increasing VAT from 15% to 17.5%

3) increasing fuel duty (and lumping the increased VAT on top of that)

4) ending the car scrappage scheme


Yup, that's a plan all right!

"Seven have made personal or company donations to the party and seven have had some previous link to a Conservative event or campaign."

You are totally right by the way. I may be totally wrong (please correct me if I am, as I'm just going on memory) but I'm sure Simon Wolfson, boss of next, the main voice, is actually a pretty high ranking tory party member. I think he's the chairman of the Tory party business growth strategy board or something like that?

You know. I'll be amazed of that doesn't leak out somewhere. The guy was on the board that probably came up with the policy in the first place!

These business leaders are correct its a tax on jobs. Its not a Tax cut the conseritives are not implementing a Labour tax rise . Yes money will have to be found to pay for it but if it helps stimulate more growth in the private sector it will pay for itself . Thats why the business laedres like it .

=========================================================================

Just look at the profits M+S, NEXT, Virgin, TESCOS, made in the recession.

People will argue that corporations, who have done better than most out of the credit crunch, should probably pay their fair share.

I'd agree if M+S were in dire straights. They are making more money than ever.

These companies just don't want to pay tax. They want taxpayers to shoulder the burden you could argue.

How well would cutting corporation tax, cutting NI for businesses go down, when you then raise VAT up to 20%?

It's a real tightrope.

In truth, I really doubt either party will win or lose votes on the back of a 0.5% tax increase.

Sending out a muddle economic message, and siding with corporate fat cats, over average joes, is dangerous.

Now you've got all 3 points up there, here are my answers -

1. If Sir Peter Gershon and Martin Reade say so then the answer has to be yes.
2. If answer to 1. is yes then it follows the answer to this point is yes as well.
3. They're a damn sight more credible than Labour's plans which consist of identifying savings and then not implementing them (!)

Personally I'm with the 23 leading businessmen, even if you do dismiss most of them as Tories. At the end of the day they are successful mainly as a result of understanding the economic market, which is more than Brown, Darling, or Mandleson can claim.

==========================================================================

I'm not convinced 6 million public sector workers, want to hear about M+S complaining about tax, when they made $3 billion in profit this year, and Sir Stewart Rose paying himself £3 million in salary, to be honest.

Danger here is not facts. It's ideologies.

A lot of people will rightly think:

I'm making sacrifices. I'll have to pay more tax through VAT in the future. What are the corporations doing, other than making more money?

Serious question. No bickering. I will accept any polite responses.

Are the benefits of a 0.5% tax cut (the polls have actually gone down for the tories since they announced it)worth:

1: A really messy economic message (I actually thought the tories economic policy was pretty clean and smart until this.

Cameron himself was on The Today Programme this morning, basically being forced to admit that they had a "black hole" in the funding of their various tax policies.

2: Possibly being seen as siding with corporate fat cats, in the recession, and protecting wealth. Over your "average joe".



I personally think it's a real tightrope. Polling I've done, and others I've read points to the fact that, although people don't want tax increases, they basically accept them.

A recent Yougov poll suggested that the consensus view, for tackling the deficit was a "mixture of tax rises, and spending cuts".

The tories are now in a position, where people are questioning how they are going to pay for things. My figures, I count £18 billion of tax cuts in the next 5 years, minimum. £6 billion more than their combined cut total so far.

You know, a week ago, they had a pretty strong "we are more trusted to cut, and make tough decisions" message.

At the same time, I do recall the 1979 election (yes, I'm that old) and Thatcher played the exact same trick.

For a long time she went hard on cuts, and "being sensible", and she really lost out in the polls surprisingly. She only came back with talk of tax cuts.

My question being, Thatcherism was a long time ago. And people are maybe a bit smarter, and wiser than back then.

Will the benefits of a 0.5% tax cut, be outweighed by a really messy economic message?

My theory, from polling, the election will be won and lost on who convinces the voters that they are being "up front" on the next 5 years

I always thought you, Nick, were more impartial than a lot of the BBC Hacks, however the more I read you the more I change my opinion. It is time to get real - do you honestly believe that the current Government can get us out of this mess. Why do you continually put the Tories through the microscope when you let Labour get away with their evasive and non-responsive answers.

I would have thought more of you if you had actually reported on the ridiculous press conference given by The Three Musketeers this morning. It was childish and pathetic. Mandelson is vexed that Osborne got good reviews from Monday night so he now tries again with the schoolboy ploy.

It is time for the BBC, and you, in particular to scrutinise the Labour statements. I note little was made of the untruths spouted by Gordon Brown on the immigration figures.

hang read it again it all about HMG (labour) repsonse to the 23 supporting the tories and not much substance on the position they were putting forward,

more poor reportigng (good towing of the HMG spin machine)

I repeat below what I said earlier on one of the Daily Telegraph bloggs on the subject.
23 Business Leaders support Tory plans not to increase NI contribution! Wow-this is as much news as finding out that the Pope is catholic! There are two points to bear in mind.
1. Business’ sole interest is to increase profits for their shareholders. Lower NI improves cash-flow and increases profits.
2. Higher profits mean higher share prices-on which these bosses are judged and paid massive bonuses and handsome pay-cheques.
As a shareholder in a couple of these companies, I am pleased to see that these gentlemen are looking out to preserve and enhance shareholder wealth including their's! For these very reasons, I would expect them to prefer to advance their corporate interests over the Country's interests. In fact, one or two of them have threatened to leave the UK because of higher UK taxes. So, please let us keep this in perspective.

I do recall Osborne telling us all that you can't fund tax cuts, by cutting red tape.

And implying that "efficiency savings" are basically fake.

My problem with both parties using efficiency savings, is that the saving in question, is the figure at the end of parliament.

As in, they will try and save £6 billion by 2015. Try being the operative word. They don't call it a "cut" as they are pretty certain they can't do it, and don't want to be held to account on it.

The problem with NI cuts, is that the 6 billion bill is instant. From day 1. Every year for 5 years.

So if you are finding 6 billion for this, over 5 years? How are you funding it.

You will need 6 billion every single year. From day one.

A lot of these efficiency moves, from both parties, won't save any money for a number of years.

#20 you too must have been on the end of a CAFCA-SS report in the family courts where they turn good into bad(father) bad into good(mother+partner) it is the same reisendetra the way there mind works.

They want all children to be with thier mothers and excluded from the fathers so they invent equality and balance and hey presto its there

Efficiency savings are when you offer the service at the current level but reduce the cost of delivering it. It may or may not involve loss of jobs.

=========================================================================

The tories (and presumabely Labour as well as they have the same figures basically ) have already stated that they will not fill 8% of civil service roles. Called "back office" work. So obviously not in defence, teaching, policing and things like that.

Office workers basically

There are 6 million public sector workers I think. So it's job cuts of around 500'000.

Half a million people will lose their jobs.

Yes who to believe. A prime Minister who has been caught lying on 2 separate recent occations (Iraq inquiry and immigration stats) or David Cameron.

No contest me thinks.

=========================================================================

Bonzo

Really.

The tories have already been told off for using misleading figures on crime, not once, but twice.

Cameron has back tracked on 50% of the policies he's ever announced. Even this morning, he was stating that the marriage tax break plan would be "put on hold".

The problem for the tories, is that they are viewed just as badly as the government.

Which is a marvellous feat, bearing in mind, they've never made a single policy or decision as of yet and should be going into power with a clean slate!

This one beggars belief.

Labour tell business leaders that they don't understand the dynamics of the British economy?

Mandelson et al have lost the plot here and for once, despite all the dissembling and obfuscation in the media, it's clear for all the public to see. And the trick they pulled vis-a-vis underfunding the military (i.e. the old chestnut that 'they're all Tories') just won't work here. Some people are guided by common sense rather than mere partisanship.

Osborne and Cameron have finally seized the initiative on an issue of vital importance. Long may this continue. Right up to May 6th and well beyond.

And a large part of it will come from extra growth. Imposing a job destruction tax at a time the economy is fragile is hardly the way to lead the economy out of recession. That's why pretty much the whole of business is against it.

===========================================================================

Paying off the budget deficit will come not from cuts, but pushing growth.

Are you honestly telling me that the tories have gone full circle, and are now just using Labour policy!

Labour have been saying this for 2 years. That growth needs to be protected.

Imposing a job destruction tax at a time the economy is fragile is hardly the way to lead the economy out of recession. That's why pretty much the whole of business is against it.

=========================================================================

Business leaders are against it, for the exact same reason they fund/lobby the tory party.

They want to pay as little taxation as possible.

I do recall the same business leaders telling the world that the sky would fall in if "minimum wage" was made policy.

Come on. Square up. They fund the tory party for moments like this. They don't want tax rises. As it costs them huge amounts of money.

Huge amounts of money, they want to keep as profits, bonuses, and dividends. Not to put into the treasury

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

' On Monday, I pointed to his past remarks that promises of efficiency savings are "the oldest trick in the book".'

That may have been true before Gordon Brown started pissing money away like there was no tomorrow. After 10 years of New Labour tax and waste I suspect there's plenty of room for efficiency savings, but they'll only be achieved if we elect a party that gives a damn about getting value for money.

Do Ashcrofts Army of web activists break up for Easter early or something?

Seems remarkably sensible on here.

Not a tory press office list of figures in sight!

This to my mind is as much about inclination & natural instinct than the definates and absolutes being constantly demanded & debated (ad nauseum) by the media. Labour's instinct and natural inclination has been (and continues to be) to dictate, control and tax us quite literally to death - and then to not spend the money they raise very wisely.

The Tories advocate a smaller state and less interferance, more devolved responsibility and generally lower / more equitable taxation policies - they are also more trusting of those expert in their respective field to get the most bang-for-buck. Of course they would find this difficult to deliver on from the off, should they be elected especially when they get to see the real "books".

bonzo21 wrote:
NR Said: "The election judgement will come down to voters' instinctive sense of whether they believe politicians are being honest"

Yes who to believe. A prime Minister who has been caught lying on 2 separate recent occations (Iraq inquiry and immigration stats) or David Cameron.

No contest me thinks.
=============================

With Ken Clarke beratting his own party on N I. I don't think so.

Tories keep flip flopping and come election day it will be tighter tha you think.

jobsagoodin wrote:
'The money for that has to come from somewhere and, if it can't come from efficiencies, it will come from other spending cuts or rises in other taxes'

And a large part of it will come from extra growth. Imposing a job destruction tax at a time the economy is fragile is hardly the way to lead the economy out of recession. That's why pretty much the whole of business is against it.
=============================

Ken Clarke disagrees with you.

Mandelson will be correct after all what would those 23 Business leaders know?

Mandelson will have a much better understanding of how Business works, how to balance a profit and loss account, how to manage and trade profitably.

He has had years experience his knowledge and achievements far surpass any of those who signed that letter.How very much dare they offer opinions that aren't on message!! sort them out Nick

Why even Nick knows better than them

Much Love
The Tooth Fairy

What we all have to ask ourselves is why we should put any faith in a government that has been running with so much wastage in the first place that it can make any cuts.

Cuts / wastage savings will mean job losses, thats a given and there are going to be many.

When the next government takes office it will be faced with a huge task of turning this country around, we cant allow the same people who got us into this to stay in place.I fear that there have been many things hidden from us over the past decade that when brought to light will make MP's expenses look insignificant.

Like many others i favour a transaction tax on banks,who are getting away with murder, it would be interesting to hear what they think about chinas way of dealing with corruption and fraud (as in the rio tinto case) when they talk about relocating there.
To me they would be no loss we need an economy built on manufacturing not banking,so when i hear about raising taxs on business's that are already weighed down with red tape, i just point to the banks.... thats where it should come from, they caused this,and by god would they pay for it if it was up to me.They are tying this present Government in knots and it has to stop,and the quicker the better.

The only people decieved is Mandy/Brown/Darling and co. if they think we are stupid enough to believe thier smears and spin against respected buisness leaders who disagree with Labours defunct economic policy and incompotent managment!

It is a compleate joke for them to complain about the tories saying they can make £6bn efficency savings when they are saying they have identified £11bn of savings! Or to say there is a black hole in Tory plans and they are not telling us about what they will cut when they have failed to say where they will make the £22bn of cuts they have admited they will have to make! And they have all the figures which they are denying to the oposition parties! And it's Darling/Labour that have overestimated growth figures of between 1 and 1.5% which leaves Labours/Darlings budget figures with the black hole of billons!

Do they justify their policies? Do they tell us the truth of their cuts and tax raising plans?

NO of course they dont they just smear anyone who disagrees with them or points out how misguilded they are!!!

========================================================================

Steve

1: Business leaders stating that they would like to pay less taxation, is hardly surprising. Especially when nearly all of them are tory party backers. It's just like UNITE stating that they would like more public sector jobs

2: The black hole refers to the fact that tories have made £28 billion in spending promises (tax cuts), and have only announced £12 billion of "efficiency savings" to pay for it thus far.

They have only explained how they will pay for 40% of their tax cuts so far. Cameron himself admits this.

Bearing in mind he then has to find another £50 billion, minimum, for cuts, it's a bit confusing.

Labour or the Libs haven't made a single tax cut pledge. In fact both want to put taxes up

Nick

Very predictable blog and how very BBC.

You could have overloaded the website with a blog:

Immigration - Discuss.

What about facts from the House of Commons Public Accouts Committee rather than partisan opinion?

Only last week, Edward Leigh, the outgoing chairman of the public accounts committee (PAC), launched a blistering attack on public sector pay, NHS bureaucracy and ministers with a “relentless itch” to regulate.

“There is not a shadow of doubt that you can deliver the reduction in the [public finances’] deficit that we require by imposing massive efficiency savings and job cuts on the bureaucracy,” said Leigh as he prepares to step down after nine years in the post.

If that summary isn't good eneough go and take a look at the many hundreds of reports on their website this last decade. It is a catalogue of phenomenal budget overspending, years of late delivery and castigation of poor quality whenever anything is eventually delivered. It shows this Government and its Mandarins are the most incompetent and profligate managers of public projects and funds that there has ever been.

This isn't about whether you like or dislike Labour policies, its about horrific management incomptence to deliver them. And thats indisputable, the facts and data are on the website.

NO of course they dont they just smear anyone who disagrees with them or points out how misguilded they are!!!

===========================================================================

Business leaders being in favour of tax cuts, as it will save them huge amounts of money is hardly a smear.

It's just the truth. Of course they are going to back policies that will involve them not paying money to the government.

Nearly all of them are tory party donors, backers, members.

You know, I don't think it's big news that big business backs tory policy. It's been the way of the world since the dawn of time.

Let's be right about this. Whatever the political parties say will prove to be incorrect. The main issue for voters will be do you want more of the same or something different. 14 years ago the economy was in perfectly good shape but the electorate wanted something different.

Labour have proved fairly conclusively that if you to want to get drunk in a brewery then they are not the best people to organise it. In fact you'll probably find that despite only soft drinks being available at the brewery they chose, and you being sober as a judge, Mandelson will be there insisting that everyone is in fact drunk, drunker than they've ever been, based on the fact the he was at a different party getting as drunk as a.. errr... Lord.

Either of the other two, I don't care which, just please, not the current lot again. The promises any of them make will not be kept, but at least a fresh incumbent will not be trying to cover up the mess he's made.

Uh-oh, just in time for the Easter break, its that ol' favourite the Mike Naylor Multiple Post show!!

(Would somebody kindly wake me up on Tuesday morning when they've gone please....?)

Oooh, here seems to be a lot of pent up anger here, judging by the number of posts queued up at the moderatores. So time to add my few pennorth.

The Labour election team are in full spate at the moment, producing reams of "hard" facts about what Conservative plans and policies are, whilst being a little light on their own plans. None of us believes anything from the budget, apart from the tax incraeses that were unveiled.

I think they've been wrong-footed by the company big wigs who, quite rightly and with a lot of actual working knowledge of the world of commerce (which is more than can be said for anybody in parliament), have pointed out that NI rises ARE a tax on jobs. Workers have to pay them, and they cannot necessarily get a pay rise at the moment to offset the costs. When economic conditions improve, and workers are able to get rises, the companies will incraese their costs and, in some cases, will recude the number of staff. Thats life. Thats how it works.

Totally agree with Mr Preston (deputy editor) on the other page.

"In fact I haven't met a single person in business who is celebrating this tax rise - and the main business lobby groups have today thrown their weight behind a campaign to replace the NI rise with public-sector cost savings.

But I should also point out that there wasn't a single signatory who made me think "wow, didn't expect him to be on a list of proponents of a Tory policy".

That doesn't mean that they are all card-carrying members of the Tory party or donors to the Conservatives (some are).

It's just that I've observed for some months the likes of Sir Stuart Rose of M&S and Justin King of Sainsbury becoming quite chummy with what you might call New Conservatives', or the leadership clique around David Cameron.

And in the business circles in which I mix, there's been lots of chatter in recent months that one or both could find themselves on the Tory benches of the Lords or doing a job for a Tory administration.

Also, there was a chunk of the letter that gave me a powerful sense of deja vu (or deja entendu, to be more precise).

It's this bit:

"The state must look to enable our public servants to make savings. This can be done by removing the blizzard of irrelevant objectives, restrictive working practices, arcane procurement rules and Whitehall interference."

Now I have heard something very similar from the lips of New Conservatives' favourite businessman, Simon Wolfson, chief executive of Next - who happens to be one of the signatories, and is very close to the Cameron/Osborne gang.

None of which is to say this letter of endorsement of an important Tory policy from some business heavyweights is trivial - just that it isn't terribly surprising.

That said, it would be wholly inappropriate to feel any pain on Labour's behalf, since in the past both Gordon Brown and Tony Blair milked for all it was worth any backing they received from a half-credible entrepreneur.

But it's worth noting that the interests of business and the interests of the country are not identical.

Some of the companies on the list, such as Diageo and Xstrata, derive most of their revenue outside the UK, for example.

And the owners of most of them are a thoroughly international bunch.

Actually I should point out that the business leaders are writing in a personal capacity, and not on behalf of their companies.

Which I suppose may influence the weight you attach to their views (for better or worse). "


Basically explains the game. Lobbying.

So Labour's latest strategy appears to be -

1. Introduce a job destruction tax
2. Delay implementing efficiency savings
3. Rubbish anyone who points out how absurd 1 & 2 are

===========================================================================

The tories appears to be:

1: Cut taxes by £28 billion
2: Pay for it by efficiency savings of £12 billion over 5 years. And then realise, damn, I didn't realise we had to find £28 billion every year
3: Slash public sector, and slide back into recession
4: Raise VAT to 20% to cover your tax cuts to the rich

This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain.

Come on now Nick give it up, or read your own economics editors most recent blog

No wonder Mandelson is spitting, they have been too clever by half and the report is full of untruths.

Well slap my thigh, who would have thought it ? the Govt resorting to spin and smear half truths and untruths and NO substance.

What's the odds that No. 10 have been frantically ringing round all day so that there will be a letter in the Guardian tomorrow from at least 60 CEOs saying that Labour views on the NI taxes are better than the Conservatives....

in other words, just like their silly response to the letter from economists the other week.

Laugh ? I nearly bought a round !!

========================================================================

Not that I'm making judgements on your intelligence, but do you actually think 23 business leaders (most of them being tory backers) just decided, on a whim, to send this letter to a tory paper?!

Maybe read on Prestons page about the huge amounts of corporate lobbying on "dropping the NI tax" that has been going on for the last 6 months.

It's all games. The tory press office at work.

Nick:

Excellent talking points from the Business leaders that you quoted in the talking points that were recommended....

Also, I am not affiliated and/or associated with any political parties in the United Kingdom.

(Dennis Junior)

What's the odds that No. 10 have been frantically ringing round all day so that there will be a letter in the Guardian tomorrow from at least 60 CEOs saying that Labour views on the NI taxes are better than the Conservatives....


===========================================================================

To be fair, unless Labour start cutting corporate taxes, I don't think they will be too popular with the corporate lobby groups.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8599447.stm

Are the attack dogs finally being neutered?

Oh how satisfying. Having watched appalled for years now as the mud flinging from our infantile incumbents grows more an more odious, they are now being caught out, red handed and in wide open space.

I can not describe the feeling of satisfaction I am experiencing at the thought of Mandy, Crash and co spluttering in indignant rage as their smear campaign comes crashing down around their ears.

38

The tories have twice been crticised by the same people, for misleading the public, with statistics, and still to this day, maintain that the figures are totally right.

-------------

Mike,

As ever, I make no defence of the Tories (although I do not know which specific cases you are referring to).

I am commenting only on the smear attacks we are witnessing today. If we see one by someone else tomorrow, I will comment on it then.

It looks like three points to me, they are in bold and numbered 1,2 and 3. Easy to miss I know.

My take on the three points of substance would be this:

1. Reduce the cost on business, cut red tape and stop trting to 'gold plate' the working conditions of every employed person in the country.

2. This creates jobs, encourages manufacturing and decreases the cost of exports.

3. Less money is spent on the welfare state and more money is gerated from overseas. Everyone gets home in time for tea and medals.

Would we rather have 100 people employed with the most lavish protection and entitlements or 150 earning a wage? Simple eh? Vote for me!

Mike (@38, 44, 49, 52, 53, 54..... ad nauseum) - Are you being paid by the post?

Brown lying to the Chilcott Enquiry, Brown attempting to mislead with false immigration statistics, and Balls lying about the number of days lost to strikes being lower under Labour; are they pathologically incapable of being honest and truthful?

==========================================================================

Yellow Belly

Could you stick to the story. Rather than blind, tory blog reader, campaigning drivel

I think it's quite plain that their isn't an ounce of honesty on either front benches.

As in, only 2 weeks ago, George Osborne was stating himself, that "efficiency savings" were just a byword for making up figures!?

Mike 38

'You know, that means about as much as 23 Unite members, signing a letter saying, they back Labour policy on the public sector.'

UNITE members want what's best for their union, business leaders want what's best for their company.

If company's do well then that means more jobs and more profits leading to higher tax receipts. In other words what's good for business is good for the economy as a whole, and that ultimately means the public sector as well.

Yellow Belly

Stating that most business leaders flock around the tories, as they are promising tax cuts that will save them billions, is hardly a smear.

Neither is stating that 17 of them are either party members, or party donors.

Neither is stating that the boss of Next is actually the Chairman of the Conservative Party Business Policy Board!?

Don't take it personally. These same people all backed Blair in 1997. It's called lobbying.

Of course they are going to support tax cuts that will save them money.

"Mike" is back in town. Time to flee, I think.

There is an excellent piece by Stephanie Flanders on the other BBC blog. Highly recommended.

Probably safe to return to Nick's blog after 7. Repetitive Strain Injury may have set in my then.

Mike 44

Yeah, Mandleson's a sly one alright. But it doesn't really work in this case because the tax busines leaders are opposing are targetted at those on low and middle incomes, not 'fat cats'.

You've obviously swallowed the labour line again Nick. No analysis of the Labour smears and lies in your piece.

We, the voters, the private sector foot-soldiers, won't take business advice from this reckless gang of cretins burning our money. They have no experience of real businesses. Labour are still spinning their lies and smears and think we're to stupid to understand. They're patronising us again.

You need private industry and creativity as never before.
Lower NI, lower taxes, smaller government!

#41. At 3:08pm on 01 Apr 2010, Marc Hydleman wrote:
Ok, so let's say we make drastic cutbacks in public expenditure.
___________________________________________________________________
Nice start, but then you got hung up in the dogma.

Public expenditure is funded by either money raised from us in various taxes, or by borrowing, or by some combination of both.

Public expenditure pays for, amongst other things, public sector jobs. Some of those jobs are essential, some aren't.

Reasonable people would like to see some of the unnecessary jobs cut, and other significant savings of costs introduced.

Let's clearly understand the significance of not doing this. Firstly the costs will rise, through inflation if nothing else. Secondly, if the only answer is to keep raising taxes, at what point does it become "unprofitbale" for people to stay employed? (which of course will exacerbate the situation). Thirdly, if we keep borrowing we WILL run out of credit. The world does NOT have a botttomless pit of money.

Anybody who says we do not have to do any of this, nor do it drastically, is deluding themselves, and lying to us.

Lets cut the size of the state, and recue the cost of the state, and then you might well find that the released funds will stimulate growth in the private sector, which is the only sure way for the country to generate real wealth.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

What's the difference between Mandleson and deceit. No difference whatsoever.
If Mandleson can talk of deceit then can he tell us how he afforded his multi million pound London villa.
Seeing Mandleson, Darling and Byrne this morning reminded me of the Marx brothers. I bet Brown was "Groucho" in the Downing Street bunker this morning. Quick duck!

"Mike wrote:
The thing with Mandelson - and I think even the tory voters on here will agree - he rarely says anything, without it being part of some wider plan."

I know Mandleson is considered by the media to be a master manipulator but to be honest I have never felt it. He always comes across as kind of slippery and that instantly makes me distrust anything he says.

It is a case of if you don't trust the messenger can you trust the message?

There are politicians out there who come across as trustworthy but Mandleson is not one of them.

"I have the feeling he's trying to group the tories and business leaders together. Fat cats. "

To be fair Labour supporters have always tried to do that, the ironic thing is that Labour have been quite happy to cozy up to business leaders in the past.


"Labour backing "average joe" with fair taxes and cuts"

You mean fair taxes like putting up National Insurance which targets anyone in work who earns more than £20k?

You can try and convince us that Labour are the party of the people, but this is one area where the Tories are actually helping the working joes.

"Tories backing "corporate fat cats"

Watch this space"

But isn't it Corporate fat cats backing the Tories? Or in the case of the people who work for the companies couldn't it be seen as "Your boss thinks that your job will be safer under a Tory government?"

Mike 50

'Sending out a muddle economic message, and siding with corporate fat cats, over average joes, is dangerous'

Nice bit of New Labour spin Mike, but it's 'average joe' that will suffer as a result of Labour's job destruction tax just as it has been the average joe that has suffered most as a result of their incompetence over the last 13 years.