Mark Reckless MP: A Budget For Growth, Jobs And Families

Today Mark Reckless MP welcomed the Government’s Budget with its plan to reform the economy to support jobs and growth, and to take steps to help families with the cost of living – including an immediate cut in fuel duty.

Key measures in the Budget to boost growth include:

• Tax cuts for businesses and entrepreneurs
• Scrapping burdensome regulations
• Radical reform of the planning system
• New investment in science and innovation; and
• More support for young people with additional apprenticeships and work experience places.

To help families facing the rising cost of living, the Budget also will:

• Immediately cut fuel duty by 1 pence per litre and delay April’s inflation rise in duty to next January. This means fuel duty is 6 pence lower than it would be under Labour.
• Introduce a Fair Fuel Stabiliser to tax oil companies more to stop above inflation rises in fuel duty
• Increase the Personal Allowance from by a further £630 from April 2012. That’s another real increase of £48 extra per year, or £126 in cash terms. Together with this year’s rise, that means a total of £326 extra each year for those working hard to support their families. And it means, just ten months into office, this coalition Government has taken 1.1 million low paid people out of tax altogether.

Welcoming the Budget, Mark Reckless MP said:

“Last year the Chancellor in the Budget brought Britain back from the brink of bankruptcy and I am delighted that the Chancellor didn’t have to come back for more today.

Instead this year’s Budget sets out plans to back enterprise and get Britain making things again. By cutting fuel duty immediately and cutting income tax for millions the Chancellor has done what he can to help families now.

Constituents have written to me about 40p a mile approved mileage allowance not being sufficient to offset the cost of driving and I hope they will be pleased that the chancellor has listened and increased this to 45p per mile.

This Budget has put fuel into the tank of our economy.”

Mark Reckless MP: A Budget For Growth, Jobs And Families

Local Residents Work 22 Days Just To Pay Labour's Debt Interest

New research has shown that someone on average earnings in Rochester and Strood will spend 22 days just paying the interest on Labour’s debts.

Labour left the country with an annual overspend of £156 billion, greater than at any point in our peacetime history. Money spent just paying the interest on their £790 billion debt bill is money that could otherwise be spent on front line services.

Commenting, Mark Reckless said:

“Labour’s addiction to debt means each and every taxpayer now has to spend weeks of the year working just to pay the interest bill.

“If we listened to Labour the debt would be £100 billion higher. They must never be put in charge of our public finances again.”

NOTES TO EDITORS

New research has shown that someone on average earnings in Rochester and Strood will spend 22 days just paying for Labour’s debt interest bill. Labour left office with the country owing £790 billion, more than at any time in our peacetime history (HM Treasury, Public Finances Databank, Table Key M, link).

The independent Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts debt interest spending of £42.7 billion in 2010-11 (OBR, Economic and Fiscal Outlook, Table 4.14, link). There are 30.5 million taxpayers, so on average each taxpayer will pay £1,400 in debt interest (HMRC, Number of individual income taxpayers, link).

Figures from the ONS show median earnings in Rochester and Strood are £22,959 (ONS, Annual Survey of Hours and Earnings, Table 10.7a, 8 December 2010, link).

This means that 6.1 per cent of an average person’s income goes on debt interest.

This works out at 22 days spent just paying for debt interest.

Local Residents Work 22 Days Just To Pay Labour's Debt Interest

Support Ireland, Not The Euro

Mark Reckless MP speaking in the House of Commons during the Second Reading of the Loans To Ireland Bill on 15th December 2010



Mark's speech was made following a series of questions in the chamber on the issue of the Irish bail out, starting with a question to the Prime Minister David Cameron during PMQs. These are set out below (courtesy of TheyWorkForYou.com)

Loans to Ireland Bill (Allocation of Time): Loans to Ireland Bill (15 Dec 2010)Mark Reckless: The package is described as a bail-out of Ireland, but it is important that we recognise that Ireland has not asked for the bail-out and that it is not the package that the Irish would have wished. Ireland and the IMF proposed to write down bank senior debt-that is, default on an element of that debt-because they recognised that it would be very difficult, although not impossible, for Ireland...

Loans to Ireland Bill (Allocation of Time): Loans to Ireland Bill (15 Dec 2010)Mark Reckless: All we are doing is passing on to Ireland the quarter per cent. or so of benefit that we gain by being a better creditor than the eurozone. Most hon. Members feel that we should help Ireland, but I agree with my hon. Friend that it is not necessarily helpful to Ireland to have a huge amount of extra debt on top of the great debt it already has. On that basis, I understand his point.

Loans to Ireland Bill (Allocation of Time): Loans to Ireland Bill (15 Dec 2010)Mark Reckless: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, notwithstanding previous assurances, this loan will not rank pari passu with the EU funds extended under the mechanism, but will be subordinated to them?

Loans to Ireland Bill (Allocation of Time): Loans to Ireland Bill (15 Dec 2010)Mark Reckless: It is enormously welcome that this country is working with Iceland and Ireland to support them in these very difficult times. The Chancellor has mentioned the current 7.5-year swap rate; can he tell us how much higher it is than when he first announced our participation in this bail-out?

Loans to Ireland Bill (Allocation of Time) (15 Dec 2010)Mark Reckless: We may have heard one or two "Hear, hears", and I am certainly someone who wants to speak on Second Reading, but let me make clear my appreciation for what my hon. Friend is doing. Any responsibility for the curtailment of time for Back Benchers should rest squarely where it belongs, which is with those on the Treasury Bench.

Oral Answers to Questions — Northern Ireland: National Asset Management Authority (15 Dec 2010)Mark Reckless: What assessment his Department has made of assets held by the Republic of Ireland's National Asset Management Agency in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — Northern Ireland: National Asset Management Authority (15 Dec 2010)Mark Reckless: Given the difficulty NAMA is having in managing these assets and the Republic's already over-indebted situation, would it not make sense for us to take some of those assets off its hands, as consideration for financial support we may give?

Oral Answers to Questions — Prime Minister: Engagements (15 Dec 2010)Mark Reckless: The BBC reports that the German Finance Minister wants to set an interest rate to punish Ireland. Will the Prime Minister confirm that this country wants to help Ireland?

Support Ireland, Not The Euro

Over A Third Of Irish Want To Leave Euro For Pound

I commissioned top Irish pollster RED C to ask the following question to a representative sample of 1,000 people across the Republic of Ireland between 29/11/10 and 1/12/10:

“In light of the current financial crisis, would you support Ireland leaving the Euro and re-establishing a link with the pound sterling, or not?”.

Over a third of the sample answered ‘Yes’.

Support was strongest among the younger age groups and people with children. A majority of those who have already lost their jobs want Ireland to leave the Euro and return to sterling. Even 43% of Sinn Fein supporters now want to return to the pound (see full results).

In the 1990s I was UK Economist for Warburgs and argued that “the UK and Ireland would be especially badly affected by monetary union with the Continent” with Irish bank lending exploding out of control under EMU (see link1 and link2). The fall-out from that has now caused ruling Fianna Fail to fall behind Sinn Fein, even losing in my grandfather’s old seat in Donegal (Henry McDevitt TD 1938-43).

The EU thinks it can order whoever forms Ireland’s new government to slash spending and hike taxes to bail out the European Central Bank (ECB) and European investors in Irish banks. The EU is also demanding that the Irish people submit weekly reports on what they spend and is imposing an interest rate which is intended to punish rather than help.

Such behaviour by the EU may be a miscalculation because it rather assumes that the Irish have nowhere else to go. That is not the case. Individually tens, and perhaps soon hundreds, of thousands are emigrating to England and elsewhere to escape the Carolingian economic settlement.

Collectively, Ireland wants to renounce its politicians’ self-serving guarantee of senior bank debt but, despite IMF support, this has so far been vetoed by the EU and the ECB. Ireland also needs monetary policy better suited to its economy so as to avoid repeated boom-bust cycles in bank lending under the Euro.

The EU may successfully bully Greece or Spain, calculating that it would be too risky for them to reintroduce their own currency, but Ireland has another option. Already over a third of Ireland want bilateral arrangements with the UK, instead of what is on offer from the EU and the Euro, and that is before the EU measures begin to bite.

Over A Third Of Irish Want To Leave Euro For Pound

Questioning The Chancellor On Ireland Bail-out

From Hansard (22 November 2010):

Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood, Conservative)
Is not the fundamental problem that Ireland has the wrong interest rate and the wrong exchange rate, and that Irish politicians made a fundamental mistake by joining the euro? Does the Chancellor agree that we must stand and support Ireland, and that should Ireland seek a return to sterling, it must have a seat on the Monetary Policy Committee?

George Osborne (Chancellor of the Exchequer, HM Treasury; Tatton, Conservative)

The first time I met my hon. Friend was when we were both at university together, and he gave a speech about exchange rates and the European exchange rate mechanism. He was absolutely right in his prediction of what would happen shortly thereafter, so it is good to hear him talk about exchange rates here in the House of Commons. I would make this observation: decisions on people's currencies must, as I am sure he would agree, be decisions for the nation state involved. I have made the observation-just because there has been some interesting speculation about this-that much of Ireland's sovereign debt is denominated in euros, which would remain whatever its currency was.

Questioning The Chancellor On Ireland Bail-out

“This Reckless Tory Budget would not have been possible without the Liberal Democrats”

I managed to find a seat in the Chamber earlier, but it was next to the Liberal Democrats, and one or two colleagues caught my eye as Labour's acting leader, Harriet Harman, trotted out the above line of attack.

I first met George Osborne twenty years ago during freshers' week at university, so I did a little bit of a double take today as I saw him walk into the Chamber, have the Prime Minister pour him a drink, and then launch into the most important budget statement for a generation.

George seems to have grown into the role of Chancellor very quickly. As well as being politically sensitive and astute, I feel that he delivered just about the best economic package he could, given the mess which he has been left to clear up.

Only halving the deficit over five years, as Labour proposed, was never a serious plan, because investors would not have lent us the money at a price we could afford. We will eliminate the current structural budget deficit over the course of the Parliament to restore confidence in our credit, our currency and our country.

Harriet Harman is right. This Budget would not have been possible without, at a minimum, Liberal Democrat acquiescence. It is surely better though - however much Harriet Harman dislikes it – to have Liberal Democrats and Conservatives actively working together to clear up the mess which Labour have left behind.

We are all in it together. Today's Budget sets out, not Conservative cuts, but the best efforts of our national coalition to put our country back on track.

We Will Stop Labour's Damaging NIC Increase

Mark Reckless has welcomed the announcement that a Conservative Government will stop Labour's tax rise on jobs by cutting waste.

"It is excellent that we will be reversing one of Labour's tax rises and reducing the National Insurance tax on jobs which both employers and employees have to pay. This will give people real confidence that we can deliver on what we say we and rely primarily on spending cuts and not extra taxes to close the deficit.

Well done George, and congratulations on your excellent and reassuring contribution to the debate against Darling and Cable last night."

Stopping the planned increases in National Insurance Contributions will result in 7 out of 10 working people being better off.

A Conservative Government will take immediate action to start cutting Government waste, in order to spend £6 billion less in 2010-11 than Labour's plans.

"The re-election of a Labour Government under Gordon Brown - with more debt, waste and taxes - will bring us a new recession", George Osborne said, speaking alongside Ken Clarke and Phillip Hammond.

"Labour will kill the recovery with their tax on jobs. We will cut Labour waste to stop it."

Former Government advisers Sir Peter Gershon and Dr Martin Read, now members of the Conservatives' Public Sector Productivity Advisory Board, advise that savings of £12 billion across all departmental spending are possible in-year without affecting the quality of front line services.

Having identified these savings the Conservatives can now commit to stop Labour's tax rise on working people and jobs at the same time as reducing the deficit faster:

Labour are planning to raise Employees National Insurance Contributions (NICs) for everyone earning over £20,000. We will stop this increase altogether for everyone earning under £35,000 by raising the primary threshold at which people start paying NICs by £24 a week, and raising the Upper Earnings Limit by £29 a week.

Relative to Labour's plans everyone liable for Employees NICs earning between £7,100 and £45,400 - which is 7 out of 10 working people - will be up to £150 better off a year under the Conservatives. Lower earners will get the greatest benefit as a percentage of their earnings. Nobody will be worse off.

Labour are also planning to raise Employers NICs for everyone earning over £5,700. This is a tax on jobs that will undermine the recovery. We will raise the secondary threshold at which employers start paying NICs by £21 a week, saving employers up to £150 for every person they employ relative to Labour's plans. This will reduce the cost of Labour's tax rise on employers by more than half.

Read George Osborne's speech in full

ADVERT

The Rochester Coffee Co. 45 varieties of tea, freshly ground coffee, freshly made Panini and so much more. 146 High Street, Rochester, Kent. ME1 1ER (Opposite Eastgate House)
Tel: 01634 540032

We Will Stop Labour's Damaging NIC Increase

Labour Chaos On Cuts

Labour's attacks on spending have backfired as the spotlight turns on their internal contradictions on cuts.

Treasury Ministers say there will be "extremely painful" cuts under Labour, but Gordon Brown says spending will carry on rising.

Treasury figures already imply 17% cuts in non-protected departments under Labour, but Gordon Brown keeps adding new protected areas without saying where the money is coming from.

The National Audit Office say that Labour’s defence plans are already "unaffordable", and Bob Ainsworth has announced defence cuts, but today Gordon Brown is promising more spending on defence. If Labour are now protecting defence spending then cuts in other departments will be more than 20%.

Ed Balls says education spending will carry on rising, but Alistair Darling claims he has only protected "front line" schools spending.

Peter Mandelson says you can't make cuts this year but is cutting more than £300 million from his own Department this year.

Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown disagree over what to do if growth is stronger than expected – Darling says he wants to cut the deficit but Brown says he wants more spending.

Today Peter Mandelson couldn’t decide whether to attack the Conservatives for cutting too soon or for cutting too little. Perhaps he should spend more time filling the vacuum at the heart of Labour policy.

For more information, click here to read our document or view the document in the player below.

ADVERT

The Rochester Armoury - Bringing The Past Back To The Future
2B Crow Lane, Rochester, Kent ME1 1RF
Tel: 01634 845526

Labour Chaos On Cuts

Scholarships For Children Of Deceased Military Personnel

George Osborne and Liam Fox yesterday announced that a Conservative government will provide university and further education scholarships for the children of servicemen and women killed while on active duty.

These scholarships will pay for the full tuition fees and other costs as they study at vocational college or university.

Commenting on the policy announcement, Mark Reckless said:

"From the Rochester and Strood perspective I am particularly delighted that the children of Royal Engineers who have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan so recently may benefit from this initiative."

This policy will apply from day one of a Conservative government - and it will also apply retrospectively to the children of all military personnel killed since 1990. This will provide reassurance and financial help for the families of servicemen and women killed while serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bosnia, Northern Ireland and elsewhere.

The scholarships, which will cost a maximum of £1.5 million per year, will be fully funded from the £455 million annual Widening Participation budget. They complement existing Conservative measures to support the military and their families, including doubling the operational allowance to £4,800 for a six-month tour, and piloting a Mental Health Service for veterans who have been deployed on operations.

Shadow Chancellor George Osborne, said "I've just visited our brave men and women serving in Afghanistan, and witnessed their commitment and determination at first hand. That's why I'm so determined to provide more help for the families of military personnel who have lost their lives serving our country."

Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox added that this was "a clear sign" of "our commitment to the Military Covenant".

"Our duty of care extends not only to those serving in our Armed Forces but to their dependants. For those fighting for our security, they have a right to know that if the worst happens their families will be properly cared for."

ADVERT

Xtremity - Stockists of Windsurfing, Snowboarding and Skateboarding Hardware and Fashion Items for Men and Women
2A Crow Lane, Rochester, Kent ME1 1RF
Tel: 01634 402944

Scholarships For Children Of Deceased Military Personnel

A Labour Election Victory Would Mean Higher Taxes And Interest Rates

Today, Alistair Darling delivered the last Pre Budget Report before a General Election.

Because he failed to take the tough decisions on spending before the election, there will be higher taxes and higher interest rates if Labour win the election.

The central measure was a tax on jobs that hits everyone earning over £20,000 - well below the median wage. That is Labour's definition of the "well off". Of all Labour's tax rises this will be the one that it is the Conservatives' priority to avoid.

Because Labour is weak they failed to deal with the £178bn deficit, cancelled the pre-election Comprehensive Spending Review, and instead said that a Labour victory at the election would mean:

- £7.8 billion higher taxes - £370 more per family - after the election
- Of this £6.5 billion - £310 more per family - is a rise in National Insurance - a tax on anyone earning over £20,000.
- Labour's planned tax on jobs is now £200 a year on someone earning £30,000 a year, or £60 on average earnings of around £23,000
- And the ring fencing means a real terms 10% cut in all other Departments over just two years

Other tax increases include:

- A £440m inheritance tax rise
- A new £440m phone tax
- £220m on workplace canteens
- £500m pension tax rise
- No help on business rates; and failed to abolish small corporation tax rise

Yet even with the tax rises there is no credible plan to deal with the deficit:

- Still no honesty on spending as the Spending Review has been cancelled until after the election
- No credible plan to deal with the deficit. Debt stabilises in 2015/16 - a year later than at the Budget
- Borrowing £789bn over the next six years - doubling the national debt again to £1.5 trillion
- The pledge to halve the deficit in four years has already been dismissed as not enough by Mervyn King, the CBI and the OECD - it would leave the deficit higher in 2013/14 than when Denis Healey went to the IMF

The PBR has been slammed by business:

Richard Lambert, Director-General of the CBI: "The Chancellor has made a serious mistake imposing an extra jobs tax at a time when the economic recovery will still be fragile. Increasing the National Insurance contribution will hold back job creation and growth. He has also missed the opportunity to increase the UK's credibility by reducing the public deficit earlier. We are no clearer today as to how the Government plans to reduce public expenditure."

David Frost of British Chambers of Commerce said that the National Insurance rise is: "Terrible news...It's an additional cost for business when they can least afford it."

Miles Templeman, Director-Generalof the Institute of Directors: "The key theme of this year's PBR is prudence postponed... A further tax on jobs at a time like this is madness."

John Wright, FSB National Chairman on the tax on jobs: "this is extremely damaging for employment in the UK."



ADVERT

Xtremity - Stockists of Windsurfing, Snowboarding and Skateboarding Hardware and Fashion Items for Men and Women
2A Crow Lane, Rochester, Kent ME1 1RF
Tel: 01634 402944

A Labour Election Victory Would Mean Higher Taxes And Interest Rates

Honesty, Not Fantasy

My apologies for not being able to update you from this year's Conservative Party Conference before now, but such is the interest in this year's event in Manchester and the accompanying high attendance figures that it has been difficult to find either the time or the facilities to get online before now.

For me the highlight of the Conference so far has been George Osborne's speech on Tuesday where he exposed the gaping chasm that now exists between our party and Labour on the burning issue of fiscal responsibility. I use the term fiscal responsibility and Labour in the same sentence advisedly because they have been strangers to one another since Gordon Brown abandoned Conservative spending plans in 1999 and went mad with the nation's credit card.

Calmly and assuredly, George Osborne set out a number of proposals to begin to deal with the worst debt crisis this country has seen since the last time Labour were in office. As a matter of fact, the current debt crisis we have been led into by Labour is actually worse than the one Margaret Thatcher inherited in 1979, with borrowing estimated to reach £175 billion this year alone. That is a truly shocking figure and one that will be paid for not just by taxpayers today and tomorrow, but by their children, and even their children's children. This cannot continue.

There is an old saying that every Labour government has always run out of money, and I am sad to say that this has once again proven to be the case. Labour always runs out of our money.

The size of the mountain we must climb in order to get our economy back on a sound footing is huge, but it is a task that we the Conservatives will undertake compassionately and fairly. The main theme running through George's speech was that we are all in this together, and he is right. We are united, not just as a party but as a country. Labour got us into this mess, and now only the Conservatives can get us out. We have done it before, and we'll do it again.

The battle now between the Conservatives and Labour is no longer just about Gordon Brown's false dividing line of 'investment versus cuts', nor indeed is it about fiscal responsibility versus profligate spending. To sum it up bluntly, the battle now is between honesty and fantasy. Honesty from the Conservatives about the measures that need to be taken to ensure we bring our country back from the brink, or Labour fantasy where the people of Great Britain continue to be lied to and treated like fools.

The choice is clear, we simply cannot afford another five years of Labour.

I will set out what this means for the people of Rochester and Strood when I return home, but in the meantime let me assure you of this - neither I nor my party will rest in our fight to bring about a fairer, more equitable society for all. Together we can make Britain Great again!

Honesty, Not Fantasy