This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/14/tory-party-bad-with-money-conservatives-privatisation-tax-cuts

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Ladies and gents, the Tory party that's bad with money Ladies and gents, the Tory party that's bad with money
(35 minutes later)
Of the questions a reasonable voter might ask themselves come election time, one becomes most urgent and, over time, seems most toxic: can you trust this government with your money?Of the questions a reasonable voter might ask themselves come election time, one becomes most urgent and, over time, seems most toxic: can you trust this government with your money?
Because, for a government welded for the specific and stated purposes of financial husbandry, it seems to be at sixes and sevens. It is the tradition of Tories seeking office to claim a thriftiness that benefits the nation and the ordinary citizen, and contrast themselves with the profligacy of parties that would supplant them. But look at today's headlines and we are confronted with collosal waste of taxpayer millions and incoherence from the Treasury? No wonder ministers – facing the imminent verdict of the electorate – would prefer to talk about immigration. Because, for a government welded for the specific and stated purposes of financial husbandry, it seems to be at sixes and sevens. It is the tradition of Tories seeking office to claim a thriftiness that benefits the nation and the ordinary citizen, and contrast themselves with the profligacy of parties that would supplant them. But look at today's headlines and we are confronted with collosal waste of taxpayer millions and incoherence from the Treasury. No wonder ministers – facing the imminent verdict of the electorate – would prefer to talk about immigration.
Two events feed a narrative. Let's start with waste, for each week yields another damning report from Margaret Hodge's cross-party public accounts committee, diagnosing fiscal incontinence in Whitehall. Usually the focus is on just one department, but today's sorry tale relates to the government's inability to properly and prudently manage its association with private contractors. Its ability to thrive in this area is crucial, for this is a government that seeks to shrink the state and hand much of its function in lucrative batches to the private sector.Two events feed a narrative. Let's start with waste, for each week yields another damning report from Margaret Hodge's cross-party public accounts committee, diagnosing fiscal incontinence in Whitehall. Usually the focus is on just one department, but today's sorry tale relates to the government's inability to properly and prudently manage its association with private contractors. Its ability to thrive in this area is crucial, for this is a government that seeks to shrink the state and hand much of its function in lucrative batches to the private sector.
Time and again the private contractors see them coming. The result is the likes of G4S overcharging the government by over £100m. Serco has been forced to repay £75m. Hodge said today: "The government needs to urgently get its house in order so that this expenditure is properly open to public scrutiny, and that measures are put in place which will improve services and secure a better deal for the taxpayer." Think about that: a government that's philosophically wedded to the ideal of privatisation, but has neither the wit nor know-how to fulfil a primary objective. It fails on its own terms. Time and again the private contractors see them coming. The result is the likes of G4S overcharging the government by more than £100m. Serco has been forced to repay £75m. Hodge said today: "The government needs to urgently get its house in order so that this expenditure is properly open to public scrutiny, and that measures are put in place which will improve services and secure a better deal for the taxpayer." Think about that: a government that is philosophically wedded to the ideal of privatisation, but has neither the wit nor know-how to fulfil a primary objective. It fails on its own terms.
Let's move to coherence. What is the point of a Conservative-led government, with a lauded Conservative chancellor who would be prime minister, if it makes a hash of the tax system? Who says it is making a hash of the tax system? Two former Conservative chancellors. Lords Lawson and Lamont. The upper 40% band, they say, strikes not just the very rich but also at those in lower income bracket; the strivers to which the party so desperately seeks to appeal. Lamont told the BBC's Newsnight that unless George Osborne acts, and soon, the Tories would no longer be "the tax-cutting party". Lawson, who introduced the band, tells the Telegraph that a failure to recalibrate since means that "far too many" people are paying 40% tax. Let's move to coherence. What is the point of a Conservative-led government, with a lauded Conservative chancellor who would be prime minister, if it makes a hash of the tax system? Who says it is making a hash of the tax system? Two former Conservative chancellors, Lords Lawson and Lamont. The upper 40% band, they say, strikes not just the very rich but also at those in a lower income bracket; the strivers to which the party so desperately seeks to appeal. Lamont told the BBC's Newsnight that unless George Osborne acts, and soon, the Tories would no longer be "the tax-cutting party". Lawson, who introduced the band, tells the Telegraph that a failure to recalibrate since means that "far too many" people are paying 40% tax.
You will take a view on whether the comfortably off should be paying tax at 40% for the greater good, but that's not the point. The point is that once again the government seems unable to adequately navigate the path it has set itself. The captain looks smart. He exudes authority. But he can't steer the ship. And this has repercussions. Tax-raising authorities need credibility and consent. You will take a view on whether the comfortably off should be paying tax at 40% for the greater good, but that's not the point. The point is that once again the government seems unable to adequately navigate the path it has set itself. The captain looks smart; he exudes authority – but he can't steer the ship. And this has repercussions. Tax-raising authorities need credibility and consent.
So this is the future. Between now and 2015, ministers who fail according to their own criteria will huff and puff and obfuscate. And when that approach falls down; they will fire off mayday flares about the history of Labour governments past and the inadequacies of the cartoon characters they depict as their opponents. This may work. Witness the Guardian's ICM poll of earlier this week - still twice as many people blame our economic woes on Labour's "debts" rather than Tory economic mismanagement. But it's a dismal prospect, for this is how our politics of hope continues to manifest itself – vote for us; we're the least worst. So this is the future. Between now and 2015, ministers who fail according to their own criteria will huff and puff and obfuscate. And when that approach falls down they will fire off mayday flares about Labour governments past and the inadequacies of the cartoon characters they depict as their opponents. This may work. Witness the Guardian's ICM poll of earlier this week – still twice as many people blame our economic woes on Labour's "debts" rather than Tory economic mismanagement. But it's a dismal prospect, for this is how our politics of hope continues to manifest itself – vote for us; we're the least worst.