"Unambiguous commitment" to increase public spending

It's always the way, I spot something at work and think "I must blog that" then something happens to distract and me I don't. Such was the line in a report that said the Conservative would make an "unamibiguous commitment" to increase public spending which has been cited in today's Telegraph.

At the time my initial thought was not a positive one. However, I'm glad I didn't just blog away, as, on reflection, are we really saying anything too different to our last manifesto committment? In that we pledged to increase spending as well. True we pledged to increase it slower than Labour did, but increase it we would.

The problem we had was that Labour were able, quite successfully it seems, to portray increases in spending as cuts over time. Dodgy and sneaky mathematics prevailed because there was ambiguity in our pledge that allowed room for that negative portrayal. As such the latest announcement in light of the 2005 manifesto does larely make sense I think.

Not only this, the idea that it is not necessarily compatiable with what No Turning Back in planning to published is not necessarily true either. Based on what has been said about that pamphlet, it sounds very much like the argument is that increased competetiveness brought about by tax cuts will offset the cut in terms of receipt revenue. On that basis, it is arguable that spending can increase (at a sustainable level) whilst reducing certain taxes.

I don't think we should be fooled into thinking that a call for an "unambiguous commitment" to increased public spending indicates something radically new, or a bad thing per se. It just means we must find words to express our position that cannot be easily manipulated by Labour as implying the exact opposite.