Skipper

Andrew Lansley suggested yesterday that Labour would have to reduce spending across the board by 10% to meet their 2011 spending targets. This created a predictable storm. I waited for Labour to refute this foul canard. The BBC News however presented a piece pointing out that, if interest rates and inflation are reduced from the spending figures and the NHS left untouched, the reductions needed to balance the books amounts to a 10% cut.

Jon Snow made the same case on his bulletin and Peter Hain on Question Time, tried to offer a rebuttal, based, I think upon the assumption the economy will revive, but he was unconvincing. Ruth Lea, a right leaning economist, but a former Treasury official was quite convincing in her explanation that the Lansley figures were correct.

Now I am very used to disbelieving Tory attacks on Labour, but I do think,in these times of opacity and spin, one should make every effort to be even handed and truthful. So far I haven't read or heard a convincing explanation that Lansley was basing his claim on Labour's own planned spending figures. Chris Huhne suggested the government, of whatever stripe in the future should level with voters, come clean and admit spending cuts are inevitable. I think I'd prefer that personally.