Page 265 - Standards Not Structures?

The Coalition Government have announced the most radical cuts to public services the UK has ever experienced. For months Osborne and his colleagues have prepared the ground by trying to convince us that the deficit is about as sustainable as a Welsh Tory and that the cuts will be fair. Yet with the figures in, the most striking aspect of the reductions is their uniformity. Only Defence has avoided the seemingly obligatory 25% cuts.

It begs the question what sort of analysis preceded this historic spending review? Was it the traditional shot in the dark method? ‘Clutching at straws’ roulette? Perhaps they drew the figure out of a hat? What is without doubt, is that the imposition of a blanket 25% reduction reveals these cuts for what they really are, an attack on the public sector with only political rather than practical ends.

Surely any sort of genuine analysis would have thrown up some sort of balancing act between individual departments abilities to make savings whilst still doing their jobs? instead the Coalition have imposed a seemingly arbitrary figure that will no doubt have significant but arbitrary consequences. So much for fairness!

In one of Tony Blair's more enlightening moments in, 'A Journey' he concludes that, after bitter experience, the ability to deliver on public services was not down to the rhetoric of standards but entirely due to structures." In the rush to deliver cuts, the Coalition may have lost the ability to deliver services. It will be a long cold winter for many.

Article first published as Standards Not Structures on Technorati.

Housing - No Comment

Scrapping aircraft carriers may grab headlines but for eight million people living in social housing the government has fired a full broadside into their future prosperity and, no doubt, hulled many below the waterline. The announcement that the social housing budget will be reduced by 50%, allow rents to reflect market rates and phase out tenancies for life will send shock waves through many households.

Housing is an essential for any basic quality of life to exist yet over the the Blair years the average house inflation was 7.5%, with family homes well beyond the reach of people on the average wage of roughly £26,000. For the low paid, social housing has provided the safety net for many to remain working and maintain a family. Aren't they the people that all political parties say we should be helping?  As private rents have increased to reflect the rises in house prices we are left with a greater need than ever to provide people with some secure accommodation, especially as the announcement that housing benefit levels will be capped. The policies together will condemn many families to poverty and poor living conditions.

What will come next? Increased prices and less social housing will inevitably lead to homelessness and since there is a statutory duty to house homeless people the cost will ultimately fall back upon the government anyway, or will that duty be removed?

Oh and please don't bother looking for Blair's views on housing. Social housing, an old fashioned bread and butter Labour Party issue was distinctly out of favour during the New Labour years when the boom was largely fuelled by house price rises caused by the abundance of credit and government policy that saw the number of new homes being built by the public sector fall well below the level to meet the demand. Once again the market was left to provide, but as Toynbee and Walker conclude in 'The Verdict, "Supply did not respond because property companies bought land, then sat on it, letting its rising value decorate their balance sheets and share price." p139.

Page 679 - "The Keynesian 'state is back in fashion'"

People often say we can learn lessons from history. It's not always that easy. Should we scrap our  democratic system because Anne Widdcombe is still in Stictly Come Dancing? Perhaps? It seems to me that one of the conclusive lessons from history, is do not cut public expenditure during a recession. Time and again, from FDR to Thatcher, politicians have seen economic conditions worsen cuts in spending.

Yet, today, 35 of Britiain's most powerful business leaders have given their support for the planned spending cuts by the government. In a letter to the Telegraph the bosses argue that reducing debt will improve confidence and that the private sector will be 'more than capable of generating additional jobs to replace those lost in the public sector.'

I am a little baffled how confidence will be improved by making a large section of the population unemployed? Surely these public servants buy their pants from M&S just like private sector workers? Where are all these new jobs going to come from? Where were they during the boom years? No doubt the private sector will fill some of the void left by the cuts. They must be rubbing their hands with glee.  People will end up doing the same work under much worse conditions. Is this the business confidence they allude to? There are certainly opportunities to exploit yet another sector of society, after all, 21% of the workforce are currently working in the public sector, that must represent huge possibilities for future dividend growth.

Although the headlines talk about top earners and huge pensions, the real story is that the public sector provides a powerful brake on the private sector's attempts to exploit its workforce. The majority of public servants are not rich but they do work under reasonable conditions. We are talking about a living wage and pension entitlements that are not generous by any means except when you compare them to the levels in the private sector. Have we fallen so low that we no longer aspire to improve worker's conditions? Instead, we allow our political parties, in league with business groups, to manipulate the public. "Ihaven'tgotitsowhyshouldthey" seems to be the watchword.

Blair argues that Brown lost the 2010 election by returning to the old Labour culture of tax and spend. He highlights the moment when 30 business leaders came out against Brown's rise in National Insurance as the point when the game was up. He concludes that,

"If thirty chief executives, employing thousands of people in companies worth billions of pounds, say it's Labour who will put the economy at risk, who does the voter believe?"


Clearly not the politicians! That would be ridiculous, wouldn't it? But doesn't it show such a sad, lack of ambition when we can't expose business leaders' statements for morally repugnant self-interest? We know who will profit from these cuts.