Proceeding contribution from Jonathan Edwards (Plaid Cymru) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 28 June 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Finance Bill.
Finance Bill
Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker. Interestingly, when the House divided on that amendment the Labour party abstained. Since then, it seems that the official Opposition's main critique of the UK Government's economic policy has been based on the Treasury's VAT policy. I hope that when we divide later the Labour Front-Bench team will set aside its usual partisan approach to votes in this place and will walk through the Lobby with us. As I see the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), grinning, I hope that that will be the case. In the 2010 general election, Plaid Cymru campaigned against a VAT increase—unlike the Liberal Democrats, who had their tax bombshell poster, we meant it. That is why we tabled an amendment to prevent the increase last year and why we have done the same again this year. Last year, I said that there was both a social and economic reason why the increase in VAT was a bad idea, and I hope to concentrate on those reasons during my speech. We are against the ideological cuts and the rush to achieve a zero deficit within one parliamentary term with the net result of hundreds of thousands of lost jobs and unimaginable pain across our communities. We have consistently expressed our concern at the possibility of what the former Monetary Policy Committee member, David Blanchflower, called a ““death spiral””, whereby cuts in expenditure become cuts in receipts. A country's economy is not like a family budget. Although it is good public relations, making misleading references of this sort is a very dangerous game for the UK Government to continue to play. In the case of the state there is a direct link between expenditure and income. Indeed, an overt reduction in expenditure can lead to a reduction in income and an increase in the deficit. Some would argue that we are in that situation already, even before the real cuts start to bite. The state cannot cut its expenditure and assume that its income will remain constant. We are talking about intrinsic fine balances, which is why it always makes more sense for a state to change its expenditure levels modestly, rather than go cold turkey, as is favoured by the current Government. Four main elements drive economic growth: public sector expenditure; exports; private investment; and the key element as far as today's debate on VAT is concerned, which is household spending. VAT is, in essence, a tax on consumption. Economic growth in the Labour years was largely driven by consumer spending, resulting in a situation whereby personal debt levels in the UK have rocketed to an unsustainable 100% of gross value added, at £1.4 trillion.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 530 c884-5
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Contracts Devolved matters Corporation tax Devolution Health insurance Pensioners Public expenditure Married people Wales Tax allowances Taxation VAT
- Legislation
- Finance (No. 3) Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 17:35:24 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_754308
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_754308
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_754308