Proceeding contribution from Mel Stride (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 28 October 2010. It occurred during Debate on Comprehensive Spending Review.
Comprehensive Spending Review
I have sat through most of this debate with a sense of growing incredulity at the collective amnesia and denial of Opposition Members who, quite simply, are unprepared to face up to the reality of the fiscal disaster they have bequeathed to us to attempt to clear up. Let me just remind them of some of the figures. [Interruption.] I am pleased to see that they find this so amusing: £270,000 per minute in debt interest, £120 million a day, £43 billion per year—which is more than we spend on education. That is a disgrace. Let me put this in historical context. In 1976, when another Labour Chancellor, Denis Healey, went cap in hand to the International Monetary Fund because this country was busted, our deficit represented about 7% of GDP. Today, it stands at 11.4%. Our house is well and truly economically out of order. This will not only affect our children, who will have to pick up the strain in repaying the debt. It has also affected our standing in the world, because this country has the worst deficit in the G20. Our deficit is worse than that of many Latin American countries; Brazil has a nominal annual deficit, as of April 2010, of a little over 3%, compared with ours of 11.4%, so we are 300% behind Brazil. It has come to something when we have to look enviously at Latin America's fiscal position. Much has been said about how quickly the Government have determined to reduce the structural deficit over the lifetime of this Parliament, but many are on our side, including the OECD, the Bank of England and the Office for Budget Responsibility. Let us not forget that Labour's plan and proposal, as far as there is one, is to halve our structural deficit over the period of the review. That would leave us with £100 billion in additional debt and an additional £5 billion in interest to pay on it. I see Labour Members sighing, but perhaps they could tell us what they are going to cut to find that extra £5 billion or what extra taxes they are going to raise to meet that requirement.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 517 c547-8
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Cost effectiveness Government departments Economic growth Public expenditure Economic recession
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 13:30:54 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_674387
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_674387
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_674387