Leading article: Wanted: some political honesty on public services
Both Labour and the Conservatives are obfuscating the issues
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
On one of the most critical issues in British politics, a stifling blanket of denial has descended over Westminster. At Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons this week Gordon Brown promised that, under a Labour government, public spending would continue to rise in real terms over the coming years.
And so it probably will, largely thanks to unavoidable increases in government debt interest and rising welfare payments. But, assuming that the Government has reached the limits of its ability to take on debt and raise taxes, there will need to be serious cuts in other areas of public spending to compensate. Mr Brown chose to trumpet the "massive" spending cuts supposedly being planned by the Conservatives, while remaining silent, as ever, on where his own Government might seek to save money.
Yet the Conservatives are behaving no more impressively. When the opposition health spokesman, Andrew Lansley, suggested in an interview this week that there would be cuts across a host of official departments if the Tories won power, he was quickly silenced by his party. Sometimes there is no offence as grave as articulating the truth.
What British politics needs is some basic honesty from both parties. If David Cameron and his shadow chancellor, George Osborne, believe that cuts in public spending are needed to stabilise the public finances, they should be upfront about this. They are entitled to argue that the mismanagement of Labour necessitates such drastic action, but it is disingenuous of the Conservatives to issue blood-curdling warnings about the state of the public purse without giving some indication about what they would do to improve matters.
As for Mr Brown, he should admit that his own government is likely to need to find considerable savings in the years ahead, even if growth rebounds strongly. It is perfectly reasonable for the Prime Minister to argue that cutting public services now, while the British economy is still suffering, would be foolish; but it is not reasonable to ignore the fact that some sort of fiscal shake-up is needed further down the line.
We need this acceptance of economic reality so that our political system can move on to the serious debate about where those public sector cuts should, or should not, fall. If there is to be a reshaping of the public realm, it must be enacted with serious thought. The easy option is the salami-slicing approach, where the Treasury simply awards each department a smaller budget. But this has been tried before and its effect is to harm frontline public services, as the managers and civil servants who run these departments manoeuvre to protect their empires and push all the pain on to those who wield less political clout.
Instead, entire government spending programmes should be reconsidered, from ID cards, to big-ticket defence projects, to public sector pensions. At the moment, this debate about strategic spending cuts is dormant. The Chancellor, Alistair Darling, has signalled that he will not publish the Government's usual spending review this autumn. Everyone understands that there is a considerable level of uncertainty about the prospects for the public finances. But let us at least see the potential scenarios upon which the Treasury is working. The shareholders of public companies expect managers to continue to present forward plans in uncertain times. Why should taxpayers expect any less from the Government?
We also need a serious engagement from our politicians with the question of how our public services can be made more efficient. Figures from the Office for National Statistics this week showed that productivity levels across the public sector have fallen over the past decade. A vast amount of money has been pumped into health and education but the value that taxpayers have received has been patchy.
Our public services are going to have to get used to doing more with less. If they are to improve, that improvement will have to come from efficiencies rather than higher funding. The Cabinet held a three-hour meeting yesterday discussing public sector reform. But shaking up our public sector will be the work of years. One meeting, even a three-hour one, can only be the start of a long, difficult process.
Of course, it is not hard to see why both the Government and the Conservatives have chosen obfuscation over openness. The Tories fear that the public still associates them with painful cuts of the past and could punish them again at the ballot box if this debate moves up the political agenda. Meanwhile, ministers are loath to admit that their historic investments in the public sector since 2000 now need to be thrown into reverse. The Liberal Democrats have been admirably open about their belief that the role of the state needs to be reconsidered, but there is only so much the third party can accomplish on its own.
Yet this debate cannot be evaded forever; these questions are simply too important to all our futures to remain unanswered.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
McBroon can't even announce budget numbers to PMQs honestly - he prefers to use nominal, rather than real, figures. Real numbers show a cut in expenditure, but he claims - with hands on heart and bible, and protestations about his moral compass - that the amounts are an investment, rather than an actual disinvestment.
If experts and ordinary citizens of the UK population couldn't cut costs, without affecting services, by 5-10% pa for years, then there must have been a "real" decline in education standards and in human thinking powers. If you doubt savings, then ask how previous generations coped in war times with zilch, and still created quantum leaps in technology.
Waste is everywhere, to no advantage to the services required. Politicians and managers of service facilities should focus on efficiency (and even cleanliness), rather than "flash" furniture, fittings and decor, computer equipment, unnecessary training courses, duplication, health and safety fanaticism, etc.
The Clunker has thrown incalculable billions at the major cost services (which produce no direct output to the economy), but results have gone backwards in "real terms" - that is, before the spin about the results.
There'll be no honesty in govt until the Serial Dissembler departs, permanently, along with "Good Lord!" Mandelson and all the PR merchants in No 10. Oh, wait - Stephen Carter is about to depart....one down!!
It is not the absolute level of spending that is important, it is how the government revenue raised is being spent. The discussion about the amount of tax revenue and borrowing is putting the cart before the horse. The way the money is being spent is the central issue, because massive amounts of money are being wasted.
A single example would be military spending, but it could equally apply to any other area. British troops are being killed and wounded in the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns because they lack three items;
- body armour
- armoured personnel carriers
- helicopters
A review of the coroners reports, primarily from Oxford because the Brize Norton airfield is where the corpses are landed, and so fall under his jurisdiction, show than many deaths have resulted from wounds that could have been prevented by body armour. This was in such short supply that soldiers were trying to buy their own privately in the early stages of the Iraq War.
Many other deaths and injuries have resulted because 'thin-skinned' vehicles such as Land Rovers with tarpaulin covers are being used to move troops rather than armoured vehicles that offer protection against bullets and explosions. Improvised explosive devices (IED) are made by linking explosives or artillery shells with a timer in a concealed location close to a road, when the troops pass, a remote control device detonates the IED and causes terrible injuries and death.
Helicopters are vital in difficult terrain where roads are few and allow the possibility of ambush. Helicopters can deliver troops to remote area's and also evacuate them. With a winch they can hover above mined area's, otherwise the downdraft will detonate the mines, as has happened in the past.
Yet the armed forces lack the simple equipment items listed above because the money is being spent on 'big-ticket' items like Trident and its replacement rather than basic military needs.
The debate needs to move on from the issue of spending increases or cuts to discuss how the money is actually being used.
If they have no money for services then start clamping down on the immigration and asylum industry that is costing us dearly - for example:
Labour has FAILED even to deport FAILED asylum seakers.
Labour has FAILED to accept the need for any immigration control whatsoever.
Labour has FAILED to deport criminals that have committed serious crimes such as murder of UK citizens. Remember those damning statistic published 2 years ago about this very matter?
Labour has FAILED to develop an immigration policy that benefits the citizens of the UK.
Labour has FAILED to insist that immigrant integrate into our way of life - and now we are seeing the results of that little experiment, arn't we!
Labour has FAILED to stem the huge numbers of people steaming into the UK through so-called arranged marriages.
But most of all Labour has FAILED - no REFUSED - to listen to the repeated calls from the people to halt unfettered immigration. Instead it chose to denigrate those people who were raising the concerns. Well they now have their answer. Someone IS listening and it is the BNP. All of us have New Labour to thank for THAT little gem.
The British people demand and end to immigration by means of arranged marriages (an outmoded primitive religious custom). They demand an END to all immigration from people who are unskilled or unqualified or whose professions are not required from an economic perspective. They demand that all immigrants have a medical exam and if they are unhealthy their residency refused on the grounds of public cost. They DEMAND that illegal immigrants are deported no matter how long they have managed to avoid detection.
When New Labour has dealt with these matters that threaten the very fabric of our society THEN - AND ONLY THEN - they can start making reforms in other areas.
Eg. Nearly 25% of all NHS spending on drugs is wasted as a result of over-prescription. Why? Becuase those prescribing are not penalised for doing so. They don;t see themselves spending money when they prescribe drugs, they see themselves prescribing drugs but those drugs cost MONEY! it's this stupidity that leads to money being thrown away.
public sector bodies fail to appreciate the value of their budgets. they have enough money but they spend it unwisely. simple
cut spending, reduce waste, make surplus people redundant, reduce union power, get the private sector to streamline all public services.
cuts in state spending do not mean reductions in the quality of service though the scare mongering unions will ratchet up their propaganda to ensure the public fear on this issue
if BUPA can treat more patients at a lower cost per patient year on year how come the NHS can't????
the public sector is a joke in this country. huge spending and the quality is still rubbish.
scrap final salary pension schemes throughout the public sector as well
huge savings to be made across all depts and this is healthy