FactCheck: Labour investment, Tory cuts
Updated on 14 September 2009
Is Peter Mandelson rewriting history on what the prime minister said - or didn't say - about public spending?
The claim
"I did ask [BBC political editor Nick Robinson] recently when exactly the prime minister had defined this as simply and crudely as Labour investment versus Tory cuts and Nick was unable to put his finger on any such quote."
Peter Mandelson, Today, BBC Radio 4, 14 September 2009
The background
The government and the Conservatives seem, in recent weeks, to have edged closer to an agreement on the fact that, with the deficit ballooning and debt set to skyrocket, public spending faces a tough and inevitable squeeze.
This morning on the radio, business secretary Peter Mandelson avoided the word "cuts", but accepted the need for "public spending constraint".
Was it ever thus? Mandelson started his interview by all but denying the PM had ever defined the public spending debate "as simply and crudely as Labour investment versus Tory cuts".
This seems, to anyone with more than a passing interest in public finance claims, decidedly fishy.
Get the latest FactCheck news: sign up for the newsletter
The analysis
We don't have to look too far to find the I word and the C word passing the PM's lips. At least, that I as in LI (Labour investment) and C as in TC - Tory cuts. Labour cuts are another, as yet unspoken, matter altogether.
Gordon Brown and Tory leader David Cameron clashed on public spending week after week in prime minister's questions earlier this year, before parliament rose for the summer recess.
On 10 June, Brown said: "There can be no doubt that the choice, whenever it comes, is between a government who are prepared to invest in the future and a Conservative party that will cut."
A quote taken out of context? If anything, it gets even more damning when you look at the full context of Brown's answer, to a question from Labour MP Gerald Kaufman.
Brown was attacking Tory health spokesperson Andrew Lansley, who that morning had said that a Conservative commitment to ring-fence health spending would mean a 10 per cent cut in other departments.
But this 10 per cent cut wasn't a carefully cooked Conservative ploy - it was based on the spending figures the government had itself set out in the budget.
Once the likely costs of benefit payments and increased debt interest were taken off the spending total, the amount left to spend on public services faced an inevitable squeeze. Protect health from this squeeze, and other departments would have to bear the brunt, to the tune of 10 per cent cuts across the board. We looked at it in more detail at the time: We looked at it in more detail at the time.
A week later, on 17 June, cuts and investment reared their heads again. Here are three things Brown said in reply to Cameron that day:
"His is the party of cuts; we are the party of investment."
"The first thing we are absolutely sure of is that, regardless of economic circumstances, employment, investment and inflation, the Conservatives will cut expenditure by 10 per cent. The right honourable gentleman said it himself last week - Tory cuts versus Labour investment."
"The issue is that the Conservatives will cut current expenditure in real and cash terms. It is exactly what I said - Tory cuts, Labour investment."
Want more? How about this, a week later on 24 June?
Gordon Brown: "We are taking the action to invest in our public services - they would cut our public services now. Why does he not admit that there would be 10 per cent cuts in public services under the Conservatives?"
Brown does at least start by touching on the more credible strain of the cuts versus investment distinction - that the Tories want cuts now, while Labour increased spending during the downturn in an attempt to kickstart the ailing economy.
But he then blots it with a repeat of the "10 per cent cut" line, which is still based on Labour's figures for a (hopefully post-recession) future.
The verdict
Did Brown characterise the public spending battle lines as Labour investment versus Tory cuts?
Yes - he did so repeatedly, simply and fairly crudely at successive PMQs just three months ago.
There are differences in the Labour and Tory approaches to public spending, both then and now. In particular, the Tories want to lift the spending drawbridge without delay, whereas Labour want to keep the tap flowing until the recovery looks sufficiently securely underway to avoid plunging the economy back into trouble.
But we've quoted several examples where Brown merely paints a straight choice between Labour investment and Tory cuts without a nod to this nuance. Factor in that Brown repeatedly used an accusation of 10 per cent Tory cuts to back up his claims, and his comments seem virtually impossible to defend.
These "Tory cuts" were based on Labour's post-2011 budget projections; casting them as evidence of a big distinction between Tory and Labour policy is something of which a former chancellor ought to know better.
FactCheck rating: 4.5
How ratings work
Every time a FactCheck article is published we'll give it a rating from zero to five.
The lower end of the scale indicates that the claim in question largerly checks out, while the upper end of the scale suggests misrepresentation, exaggeration, a massaging of statistics and/or language.
In the unlikely event that we award a 5 out of 5, our factcheckers have concluded that the claim under examination has absolutely no basis in fact.
The sources
Hansard: PMQs 10 June 2009
Hansard: PMQs 17 June 2009
Hansard: PMQs 24 June 2009
Your views
You've read the article, now have your say. We want to know your experiences and your views. We also want to know if there are any claims you want given the FactCheck treatment.
Email factcheck@channel4.com
FactCheck will correct significant errors in a timely manner. Readers should direct their enquiries to the editor at the email address above.
