Confused Cameron a liability, MPs say

Mr Meacher accused Mr Cameron of "veering all over the place" following the Tory leader's sudden weekend wobble on the timing of severe public spending cuts.

"First he said that there have to be massive cuts quickly, and now he backs off and says they should be less stringent and less fast," said Mr Meacher.

"This is a man who purports to be the prime minister-in-waiting.

"Yet on such an absolutely central issue as the direction of economic policy, he is confused, uncertain and keeps changing his mind."

Instead of the swingeing cuts advocated by Tories and new Labour, Mr Meacher urged a massive public investment programme to create one million jobs.

This would get people off benefits and back into work, creating goods and services and paying tax, national insurance and VAT.

"The true cause of the crisis in the real economy is the collapse of private investment," said Mr Meacher, adding that public investment must fill the gap.

First Secretary of State Mandelson accused the Tories of confusion and economic "illiteracy" on Monday, likening Mr Cameron and shadow chancellor George Osborne to "Laurel and Hardy."

In a weekend interview, Mr Cameron suddenly blurted out that "we're not talking about swingeing cuts" in the first year of a Tory government.

Only days before, he had accused the government of failing to make big spending cuts early enough, adding: "We can't go on like this."

In this widely publicised speech, Mr Cameron demanded "some early action" on public spending cuts, emphasising: "That means some reduction in public spending plans in this coming financial year - 2010."

Left Labour MP Alan Simpson commented: "Cameron has painted himself into a corner, and I'm happy to help him out.

"If Mr Cameron was looking for cuts, he could start by cutting Trident nuclear weapons, ID cards and the expensive IT programme at the Ministry of Defence."

Mr Simpson added that "the really big cut" would be to scrap concessions to the bailed-out banking and finance sector, which is able to write off its financial gambling debts against tax.

"There is no reason why the taxpayer should pay twice to keep the casino running," added Mr Simpson.