After a rather inspiring hour of TV debate, here was my take. Who won? No-score draw, I reckon. Will it change anything? No. Was it worth it? Not really. For another take go to the Westminster blog, which is plumping for Vince Cable as the victor.
So boxed-in are the three candidates for chancellor by the budgetary arithmetic that there was broad agreement on the main tasks facing the next occupant of Number 11.
All agree that cutting the budget deficit is a top priority and it will require a tougher spending settlement than those under Mrs Thatcher in the 1980s. None wanted to tell the audience in the studio or at home what deep cuts they had in mind although they each had some small examples to give the impression they were tackling the problem.
They all accepted that pensions for public sector workers should be trimmed and those employed by the state could not have a guarantee of their jobs. They all agreed taxes would rise and did not rule out changing income tax or value added tax. A brain drain of the richest was an exaggerated threat, they chorused, suggesting their priorities lay elsewhere. The government should address inequalities and bankers’ bonuses were outrageous. Banks should lend more and this was one the necessary ingredients for securing growth in the economy.
That much was agreed, so the disagreements were relatively minor.
Alistair Darling and Vince Cable rounded on George Osborne for seeking to use spending cuts to avoid the planned national insurance increase only a few days after he insisted deficit reduction was his main priority. Mr Darling said it showed, “poor, poor judgment” while Mr Cable said the Tories change of heart was “utterly incredible”.
Mr Osborne’s criticisms of the financial regulatory regime and his proposals for a root-and-branch reform putting the Bank of England back in charge of bank supervision won approval from the studio audience.
All three had one poor moment where they seemed to lose a grip on numbers or facts. Mr Cable will not be popular in the former Abbey National headquarters for saying every former building society collapsed in the crisis. Mr Darling lost credibility in suggesting that lower unemployment might avoid deep cuts in public spending, when those cuts are already in his economic projections. Mr Osborne found it impossible to explain how cutting the deficit and taxes was a consistent policy in these times.
And all three avoided numbers for most of the whole hour. This was a deliberate attempt to bring the crisis to a level most people understand. The refusal to use technical language or the scale of the challenge did, however, obscure the real choices facing Britain, which the public will be shielded from during this campaign.
These numbers are serious because they are so large. Britain is borrowing £2,800 per person this year, more than £1 in every £10 earned in the economy. This is unsustainable and requires a detailed multi-year effort to reduce spending – both on government services and benefits – and raise taxes on the many as well as the few richest. There is a legitimate argument to be had on when to start deficit reduction, but it is coming, coming at a time the population is ageing, and it will require big changes in the quantity and quality of public services as well as a huge efficiency drive.
None of the three came close to telling the public what is in store and instead ducked the issue leaving voters not much the wiser of their priorities in these tough decisions.
