Death by a thousand cuts?

It has been a while since I last posted, and whether that has been a good thing or not, I will leave to you. A lot has happened in that time, as the 'emergency' budget has been presented and the government has started on the path it believes to be the right one. However, is this the right path for Britain? Will it lead to a better society, with more freedoms, or the end of our public services as effective providers?

It is, of course, too early to tell, although depending upon our view of how things should be done, many of us either fear, or look forward to the policies being carried out. It will be of no surprise to you that I lean towards the former position, but it is important to explain why it isn't a knee-jerk reaction to a government I didn't elect.

When the last government left office, it was widely acknowledge that something needed to be done about the country's finances. The deficit stands at around the £150 billion mark, and the debt is something that is looking likely to increase over the next few years. The Labour government's opponents say this is a disgraceful legacy which means savage cuts in public spending are required, whilst I, and other supporters, would say we took necessary action to prevent a recession turning into a depression.

Unfortunately, this action was not enough to stop Labour losing the election, and the eventual formation of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition. I have written previously on this, so do not intend to repeat my views here, they can be read in http://harbottlegrimston.blogspot.com/2010/05/convinced-or-condemned.html

We are approaching the first one hundred day mark, and the media will have a large number of articles considering what they believe has been achieved, or otherwise during the period. This will make very odd reading as the Telegraph and the Mail, natural Conservative supporters, produce largely negative reports. Their attitude to the coalition has been really quite vitriolic at times, and it almost seems they want another election, in the belief it would result in a Tory majority.

The Guardian and Independent, both supported the Liberal Democrats to varying degrees, and with the reason of producing a coalition, though a Lib Dem/Labour alliance was what they had in mind. Therefore, I suspect that apart from the AV referendum, they will be largely negative. The Express will be absolutely in favour, whilst the Mirror against, and the Times I expect mainly positive.

It is not their attitude that will be interesting, however, but the reason why. As pointed out, the Telegraph and Mail will be negative, because they believe that the Conservatives have given too much away. This may come as a shock to many of us, but it seems that the Liberal Democrats have turned them soft.

So,what have the coalition done in their first few months in government? The first announcements centred around an initial £6 billion worth of cuts, which were much harder than they envisaged, because much of the waste had already been found and dealt with by the Labour government.

The second thing was to tell us how much worse things were than they thought, in order to soften us up for the budget. Figures released since, would seem to indicate the coalition have been, 'economical with the truth,' as unemployment has fallen, and growth figures have been much better than expected. In addition, the deficit has been less, although the debt a little bigger.

But, they achieved their initial task, and prepared everybody for an austerity budget, which hits at the poorest members of society the most. Why this more political take on it? Because it seems impossible to read it any other way. Yes, the banks have been hit with an £8 billion levy, but unlike the cuts in services and welfare, this is against institutions and not individuals. The government's line is that this budget was 'unavoidable,' yet they have a choice as to how they go about dealing with the situation. This coalition appears to take the path of least resistance, and take services away from those who need them the most.

The banks will recover from this, and in fairly short time as the economy, hopefully, continues to recover. But the welfare cuts, and the rise in VAT, hits the poorer hardest because the increase is a greater percentage of their disposable income. Welfare will account for some £11 billion of cuts, and is an attack on those least able to defend themselves. Services are taking the brunt of the cuts, which affects those at the bottom, with the better off, seemingly getting off unscathed.

Amazingly there is an even worse aspect, which makes it harder to bear. The Secretary of State for Scotland Michael Moore (he replaced Danny Alexander who replaced David Laws), and he appeared on Question time a couple of weeks ago. He was challenged by an audience member to explain how the housing benefit cuts were fair, when it could make them homeless?

Now, I know Moore is a member of the government, and is defending the coalition view, I have no problem with that. However, it was his complete lack of empathy that disgusted me, as though this person's life (and the thousands of others in a similar situation) was of no consequence, all that mattered was the agenda. Empathy is important in a politician, Blair and Clinton being prime examples, but Moore failed to demonstrate any. Now this may be a personal trait he lacks, I'm sure there are members of the cabinet who wouldn't have been so stark, but it made the government seem utterly soulless and not be concerned about how their policies are affecting people.

That's the budget, and in October we will get the spending review when the flesh will be put on the bones. Cuts will be somewhere between 25% and 40%, and some departments will, naturally, face bigger cuts than others. It will probably not be until next January, when the VAT rise kicks in, that the first real protests from the public will emerge, and then in May, the local elections which will be the first opportunity for the public to show what it thinks through the ballot box.

This seems like the ideal time to look at the main legislation that the government is proposing, and their 'big idea.' It is planned that next May, along with local elections, parliamentary and assembly ones in Scotland and Wales, there will a chance to vote on whether to change the electoral system.

I support the change to a proportional voting system in Britain, but unfortunately we will not be voting on that. What we should have the opportunity to do, is vote to change to the alternative vote system, which I have described on a previous occasion.
There is no absolute guarantee this will happen, as many Conservatives are against changing the system, so may defy the whip, and the Labour Party finds itself in a quandary.

The bill that will go through parliament, Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, contains other elements Labour disagree with. Primarily, the plan to reduce the number of constituencies to 600. It is not reducing constituencies that Labour has a problem with, despite the propaganda issuing from the coalition, but the way it is being done. It usually takes about a decade for the boundaries commission to sort out what changes need to be made, as they look at demographic change, and how it affects parts of the country. However, in order to get this through, it appears as though it is being rushed, and there is a view that it is designed to favour the Conservatives. Principally because, not only will Labour urban areas be swamped by Conservative suburban and rural areas, but a great reduction on Scottish and Welsh MPs, which tends to vote for the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties.


Personally I hope the Labour Party decide that a short term gain is not to their advantage. Defeating the referendum in parliament can only work in the Conservatives favour, as they don't support a change in any form. Labour should allow the coalition to create its own divisions, which will occur if either Tories defy the whip and vote against the referendum, or even more likely, support an amendment to ensure that a certain threshold has to be reached as in the Scottish devolution vote of 1978. Many have wondered whether the referendum is something that would put pressure on the coalition. I think this will only happen if it is defeated by Conservatives in parliament. If Labour vote it down, that will not mean the end of the reduction in constituencies, but will give them an excuse to take electoral reform off the agenda, and blame Labour for defeating it. If the referendum is lost in the country, then the Liberal Democrats will have no option but to accept the argument had been lost.

Moving on, the coalition has attempted to present itself as something different in British politics. But, words are easy, it's actions that speak loudest, and the coalition doesn't seem to be living up to these. At Prime Minister's Questions Mr Cameron seems have very quickly learned the art of not answering questions, and the planted ones are so blatant, it is embarrassing to watch. Mr Cameron only seems to have one mantra at present, 'It is because of the mess the last government left,' which is only useful for a very short time (as Labour discovered after 1997), as people will quickly begin to ask them what they're doing about it.

A subject I am particularly interested in is education. My years at the grammar school in Dedham followed by Emmanuel College, Cambridge, and my work in Colchester, led me to take an interest in how education can improve the lives of everyone in society. The government's education department, has been a real catastrophe, and the Secretary Mr Michael Gove, an unmitigated disaster. I do not doubt that he has many talents, but attention to detail does not seem to be one of them. The Building Schools for the Future programme was an important one for the Labour government. There may well have been issues with it, it seems impossible to do anything perfectly, except cock-up, but its intention was to provide schools with much refurbishment. For those who ask why it hadn't been done already, in 1997 a Labour minister said it will take twenty years to sort out the extent of the neglect by the Tories.

The problems with the list of schools affected by the halting of BSF are well known. Five lists have had to be published, and Mr Gove apologise to the House. The problem is, that schools, and the public, are now unsure what is true and what isn't any more, which means the department is already distrusted. The lists also appear to have been unfair, as they hit Labour constituencies much more than Conservative ones,
and before the cry goes up that Labour ones benefited more from the work, there were previously a lot more Labour MPs. Yet, Labour lost over ninety seats, and are still in the majority of constituencies hit by the projects being stopped.

That, however, isn't the main unfairness of this policy. If an area had just two or three projects stopped, or unaffected, I could understand it. Constituencies with a great number, you would think would be likely to have a mixture of them. yet some Labour seats, with six or seven have them all stopped, and Sheffield Hallam, which has something like twelve projects, all of which are unaffected. Whilst not proof of anything, at least raises the question of whether there is a hint of politics behind the decisions.

Then, to make things worse, this week Cambridge University sent a letter, which raises doubts over plans to do away with AS levels. The university considers them as good indicators of a student's progress, and helpful especially in enabling those from poorer backgrounds to get into 'top' universities. They didn't say the system didn't need reform, but not the complete abolition Mr Gove was advocating. The third problem, is the Academies Bill that has just been through parliament, which was restricted to three days debate on its third reading (the final stage in the Commons before it goes to the Lords, and once passed then into law). This haste caused a great deal of unhappiness, not only with the opposition, but amongst Liberal Democrat MPs too, although it was eventually passed.

Taken individually these would be considered serious issues, but as they have all happened within a couple of weeks, it makes the department appear to not know what it is doing. The haste with which the Academies Bill has gone through the chamber would seem to indicate a government fearing either scrutiny, or that they will not be around for long. They plan to be in power until May 2015, and a properly scrutinised bill, could have enabled these new academies to be established in September 2011, with all the kinks smoothed out as far as possible, and it would also be clearer how the spending review will affect education.

The next project will be to pass the legislation enabling 'free' schools to be set up, although where the money for this is coming from I'm not sure, unless it is being taken out of that already in the education budget, or new money miraculously appearing. The latest research seems to indicate that where these schools already exist, Sweden and the USA, the results are very patchy. Still, we'll have to wait and see how it unfolds, but I fear it will be for the benefit of the better off, leaving the poorer children to struggle. If the reports in today's 'papers are true, and school's will be able to select more easily, then the gap between the have and have nots will rise even more.

The other big policy announcements have been on the NHS, and they are worrying, and seem about turning doctor's surgeries into independent businesses. I am concerned that the government seems to be trying to privatise our public services by stealth, and that state run ones will virtually disappear. Although I disagree with this as a philosophy, i think they should be honest if this is their intention, so we can vote on it. As the government has not stated this explicitly, I can only extrapolate from their actions to date, and the general directions of their policies. I hope I am wrong, but time will tell.

The realisation of this concern comes in the guise of David Cameron's big idea, known as the 'big society,' which has always struck me as a Conservative version of Lyndon Johnson's 'Great Society' of the sixties. In this plan, Mr Cameron expects charities and other third sector organisations to replace public services in areas where they are cut by the government. It is a myth put about by some Tory supporters that Labour is afraid of the charitable sector, yet this is, of course, untrue. However, they view them as additions to state run services, although it is true that there are areas where they work that government or local authorities have failed to act. Sometimes government will then come in, but it is recognised that these services, and people are a valuable part of civil society.

Mr Cameron wants the third sector to step in and run our services to make up for the cuts government says are 'unavoidable.' However, they are also cutting back on third sector funding, so it is going to be difficult for these organisations to fill the space, and they seem to think a lot of new ones will suddenly crop up. They are, in fact, relying on those working, and those that lose their jobs, to get involved in these, in order to provide the experience and expertise.

But, it is my opinion, and that only, that the government is expecting private companies to begin to fill the gap, and that this will have to be paid for by someone. If government pays, they will expect much more return for the money, if individuals, then only those who can afford to will benefit.

Any Conservative supporters who read this will naturally say I am exaggerating, yet if you look at what is planned, what other outcome is possible? The circumstances do not exist for the private sector to create the 2.5 million jobs (as opposed to the 1.3 million losses in public and private sectors expected to be lost), as it is the world economy recovering from recession, not just Britain. The only way the private sector will be able to create a lot of jobs, is if companies are established to provide the services the government previously did.

Before I conclude, I will say some positive things about the government. Firstly, Mr Cameron has tried to bring a friendlier, and lighter tone to his government. He strikes me as a decent man, who I believe is just mistaken in his policies. The coalition is something different in Britain, as we are not used to formal peacetime ones, though the two parties in this one, do not seem natural bedfellows.

The one area of policy they so far seem to have got right is foreign affairs, especially in their reaction to the Israeli flotilla incident. Although much can be made of his '1940' slip (the real issue here was the 'junior' comment), Mr Cameron is to a large extent correct, in that the USA views Britain as secondary, and we should stand up to them more.

So, as we approach the one hundred day mark, I would say the coalition has a lot of work to do. They need to work out whether they are going to rush through legislation, giving the impression of a government in fear, or take their time, and make sure it's right and has a lasting effect? The education fiasco has not created a good impression, and shows the danger of trying to do things too quickly. They need to slow down, and think about what is really the best way to govern, and not just be driven by ideology.

In the end, it is really too soon to say how this will work out, and I, and no doubt you, will watch very closely. I am not a supporter of this government, but we can't afford for them to fail in their aims to make Britain successful, but I just don't see it happening, if they continue on the current path. Will the cuts they are making mean the end of public services in Britain as we know them, and will civil society be able to replace them, without making it a business?

But in the spirit of openness, I invite you to suggest subjects you would like Sir Harbottle to investigate next.