Politics

James O'Brien's analogy for Liz Truss's tax cuts defense shows they make no sense

James O'Brien's analogy for Liz Truss's tax cuts defense shows they make no sense
James O'Brien delivers analogy for Liz Truss’s attempt to defend her tax …
LBC

In recent weeks, tax cuts announced by prime minister Liz Truss and chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng are said to have plunged the markets into turmoil.

After the announcement of the mini-budget, the pound dropped to its lowest-ever value against the dollar and there were many other signs the cuts had caused havoc.

At yesterday’s PMQs, the PM attempted to defend the tax cuts by pointing out the help the government is providing with energy bills. But shortly after, her defence was ripped to shreds by LBC host James O’Brien with a perfect analogy.

While discussing the tax cuts, O’Brien explained that the mini-budget contains millions of pounds worth of tax cuts, as well as the public money being used to help people with rising energy bills.

He said: “It’s going to be financed by borrowing, but it’s public spending. So that’s spending money and the tax cuts are rejecting money that would have otherwise made its way into the treasury.”

Sign up to our new free Indy100 weekly newsletter

O’Brien went on: “How can she claim when she’s asked questions about the tax cuts, how can she claim or even mention the energy bills help, because the energy bills help costs the treasury money, and the tax cuts cost the treasury money.”

Speaking to LBC’s political editor Theo Usherwood, O’Brien explained his thinking in an analogy that put things into stark realisation.

O’Brien said: “If we were married and I went out and brought a Lamborgini, and you said, ‘how the hell are you going to pay for that Lamborgini?’ and I said, ‘Don’t worry, I’ve bought a Porche as well’.”

Usherwood admitted that he would have reservations about how he was going to pay for the Lamborgini repayments, never mind the added Porsche repayments on top of that.

O’Brien likened the analogy to Truss’s tax cuts and public spending, and called her explanation, or avoidance, of answering how we’re going to pay for it all “insane”.

Have your say in our news democracy. Click the upvote icon at the top of the page to help raise this article through the indy100 rankings.

The Conversation (0)