PC 11: Budget

User avatar
Sir Jack Anderson
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 10:22 pm
Constituency: Southampton Test
XP: 7
Trait(s): None
Discord username: TrashPotato#4034

Re: PC 11: Budget

Post by Sir Jack Anderson »

One has to admire the Liberal Democrats wanting to outdo Labour on welfare, then being shown up for fiddling their figures, and now employing Tory rhetoric.

There is a place for the tax system in working to alleviate poverty - that is why Labour will sustainably, year on year, reduce the tax burden on working people. But it is not a real strategy for tackling poverty: that's why Labour have invested in tax credits, an efficient and cost effective way to lift people's incomes. This stands in stark contrast to the Liberal Democrats, who have to spent £15 billion just to reach the same level of income boosting for families and pensioners.

Labour have taken a fiscally responsible path that tackles pensioner poverty and child poverty, whereas the Liberal Democrats waste tens of billions in their chase for good headlines.
Sir Jack Anderson
Labour Party.
Member of Parliament for Southampton Test
Chair of the Treasury Select Committee. (2000-2001)
Chancellor of the Exchequer. (2001-)
First Secretary of State. (2001-)
User avatar
Will Frost
Conservative MP
Conservative MP
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 3:22 pm
Constituency: Tatton
XP: 6
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Croft

Re: PC 11: Budget

Post by Will Frost »

Labour has consistently attempted to position themselves as a party of working people, concerned with helping everyday people get a leg up in our society. The Chancellor's budget, however, shows their true priority: hoarding the nation's surplus in order to appease wealthy investors and their big money donors in the City. This budget might make financial speculators in the City happy, but it does so at the expense of being able to return money to the British people that worked to earn it in the first place. A Government that holds onto the taxpayer's money does so at the cost of growth and prosperity, denying Britain of the injection of investment and tax cuts we need to expand economic opportunity.

The most important verdict on the Government's budget comes not from isolated investors in London, but from working people in towns like Plymouth and Nottingham. It is their quality of life that concerns me, and their ability to pursue their dreams and realize their potential that I find most important. I want to see an economic plan that helps them and their families, that extend opportunities to the small businesses they run, and allows them to keep more of the money they earn. That is a budget I can get behind, and it is a budget that is fundamentally different from the one presented by this Government.
Will Frost MP
User avatar
Rebecca Flair
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2021 8:15 pm
Constituency: Westmorland and Lonsdale
XP: 0
Trait(s): None
Discord username: DylPickle

Re: PC 11: Budget

Post by Rebecca Flair »

I am extremely disappointed that the Chancellor, fresh from being told by the commentators that his surplus is too big, has decided to come out swinging in defence of his bankers' budget rather than admit error and move on. Here's the truth about the Lib Dem Shadow Budget, nearly everyone gets a tax cut, it's that simple. £1,000 a year for Tax Credits sounds nice if you receive them, but it does nothing to help the squeezed middle class. £50/yr for State Second Pension sounds nice if you receive it, but it does nothing to help the rest of our pensioners. Labour claim that a £1,000/yr tax cut, with incomes going a further 2.5% further due to VAT cuts, and nobody paying a penny of any income tax under £6,000 is not a real strategy for tackling poverty; I say that letting people keep more of their own money, especially at the lower income end, is exactly how we end poverty. Only a joined up strategy of work, welfare, and wage rises will bring poverty to an end in the UK, the Government seem awfully quick to ignore that last one in favour of their bankers' budget.
Rebecca Flair
MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale 2010 - Present

Leader of the Liberal Democrats 2015 - Present
User avatar
Astrid Goldman
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 5:36 am
XP: 7
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Aaron

Re: PC 11: Budget

Post by Astrid Goldman »

For parents up and down this country, this budget is a fair deal. By ensuring schools are properly funded and putting in additional strategic investment into secondary school buildings, IT suites and design technology rooms, we are ensuring schools that are fit for purpose. Future Classrooms is an additional £1.5bn investment into our country's schools and colleges on top of the £2bn already earmarked for hiring more teachers and support staff.

Families will be pleased to note, I am sure, the £30m we are investing in SureStart early years provision and our guarantee that every parent of a child under 5 gets a minimum of two hours free child care every week. 2 hours may not sound a lot, but it the difference between being able to drop the kids off on time or facing being late five days a week and having to cut hours. Working families understand the difference that can make to a family's spending. I would much rather see Mums and Dads being able to organise a later pick-up than having to cut their hours, and thereby their wages, to get the kids because of childminder costs.

Families who don't have to worry about making those choices, who know their children's classrooms are being kitted out, who know their wages are increasing by 4%, who can see the bottom rate of income tax eliminated, who don't have to face tax or National Insurance hikes; they're the families we're helping to make our economy fairer.
Astrid Goldman, Lady Goldman MP
Labour Party| Member for Pontefract and Castleford
Secretary of State for Education and Children 2001-present
Previously: MoS for Schools 1998-2001
User avatar
Blakesley
A-team
A-team
Posts: 292
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2020 5:19 am
XP: 14
Trait(s): None
Discord username: Blakesley

Re: PC 11: Budget

Post by Blakesley »

PC 11: Budget

I want to start with some general notes for press cycles - particularly for offering a critique of something. There are two ways to go about presenting an argument. The first is to stick religiously to a theme. The second, for those familiar with creative writing, is the notion of showing, not telling. Sticking religiously to a theme establishes a clear narrative and, from a communications perspective, drills a few key buzzwords into the minds of those that don't even care to know them. Showing, not telling, makes things stick in people's minds when you're trying to prove a point - it is critical for moving from the abstract to the impact something will have on daily life. If you don't do this, a lot of your message will not resonate - unless you're doing the first very effectively.

Which brings us to analysis.

Labour dominates the first part of the press cycle and you can tell they're here to sell a narrative. All four frontbench members commenting bring up some variation of "fiscal responsibility". This is added to later in the press cycle with the refrain of "responsible investment". If I can tell you anything about Labour's budget, it's that they are being fiscally responsible and investing a lot of money. These are good, crisp, clear messages. While this is meant to be Sir Jack's show, Andrew Edwards comes up with a lot of solid lines that combine the strategy of creating a narrative and showing what their policies will mean.

The Liberal Democrats are vocal in this debate. I'll be honest, the compare and contrast strategy doesn't work - this goes to "show, don't tell". Show people that they'll be better, don't tell them. Some of the welfare comments, unfortunately, don't make that much of an impact all things considered. We start getting somewhere with the unambitious line - the Lib Dems are ambitious, Labour is not - but that fades into the ether quickly. It would have been a good line to run with. The key in this press cycle, which is focused on the government's budget, is to convince people that Labour has the wrong priorities, not that the Liberal Democrats have the right one. Ultimately, they struck some notes towards that point, but not dramatically.

The Conservatives then step in to the debate and they do have a message (mostly): Labour isn't cutting enough taxes. There are some side shows (flood defences, the Strategic Defence Review) that become very silly in the shadow budget press cycle. But here they could use some refining. For example, on flood defences, don't just talk about civil engineers and generic risks. Show voters that their homes could be impacted. "Labour isn't spending enough on X" is nowhere near as potent as "Labour is putting your home at risk by X" (this note applies to everyone). Ultimately, didn't cut taxes enough is a hard argument - but one that can be convincingly made. The far better argument here would have been to go after the taxes Labour did raise. That was a big miss. On Labour just spending without a plan to use the money effectively - show me. Don't just tell me.

Side note: you are Conservatives. Do not attack "financial speculators in the City". They pay for you to exist.

Also, when I make a statement, I like to think of balance. Your statement should not read like this with half of it in bold. Aim for no more than 20% in bold.

Anyway.

The points

Labour: +5
Liberal Democrats: +2
Conservatives: +1

XP to Andrew Edwards
Blakesley
Treasury | Labour
Locked

Return to “Marked Press Cycles & Speeches”