Guess the cuts !

Ali

We have had Child benefit cut, Schools and Playgrounds not being built whilst it seems like Aircraft Carriers will get built but without any fighters to go on them ! How about some predictions for some of cuts to be announced on the Wednesday. My top of the list for a sneaky ones is to move the basis of taxation increases from RPI to CPI – will need legislation but works quite well for the government in a quiet sort of way !

ADGS

The aircraft carrier decision is utterly baffling. It's as though the carriers themselves have assumed totemic significance, but actually being of any use is utterly incidental. Doesn't bode at all well for tomorrow. Perhaps they'll still build Crossrail, but not bother with any trains for ten years?

WillM

Carrier decision is because it's the cheapest thing to do: not buying the carriers is more expensive. I don't think the government thinks we need a carrier, otherwise Ark Royal would still be running, but since we're going to get these carriers, might as well make it into a strength and hope that no-one thinks about it too much.

miss annie

Ark Royal is still running, it's being decommisioned earlier than planned though.

WillM

ah, ok. press association reported that it was an immediate axing.

miss annie

It pretty much is. I have a pal who is a submariner in the Navy and they are quite cross about the whole thing as it's still a servicable ship.

ADGS

The Navy's been getting treatment like this since at least the 18th century, of course. Shortsighted politicians looking to save a few quid in the short term, not realising it'll only cost more in the long term to replace that capability, even aside from what a shoddy way it is to treat brave men (and now, women too).

WillM

unless we're likely to have a series of european wars, investing in anything other than special forces and the navy seems utterly silly.

ADGS

The RAF are clearly still useful, if only to shoot down hijacked airliners and then claim the passengers heroically crashed themselves.

WillM

sure, but we don't need typhoons to do that.

tosscat

I don't like Ali's guessing games; they're most [unsatisfying](http://www.stroudgreen.org/discussion/2230/competitive-pizzas/).

Ali

What I was told by a reputable source doesn’t seemed to have happen yet on the Pizza front. Has anyone noticed the name of the fat pig that sits outside La Porchetta? Have a look on the back of it when you pass.

sincers

This could be first step towards a federal approach to European defense. Although after Angela Merkels comments the other day, we may want to watch that one!

Arkady

Funny you should mention that sincers. I’ve spent a little time studying European defence coordination in recent years – though it’s far from my main interest – and it did strike me that having a carrier with no planes of our own but with the capacity to service French aircraft is, essentially, exactly the kind of thing that they have been trying to implement for years. Inter-operationalism, I think they call it. Is this an example of the Lib Dem influence, or of Tories putting practical demands ahead of ideology, or both? Curious.

sincers

As you say, these things rarely get decided on short term thinking. Having said that its strange how current conflicts influence spending strategy. During the Gulf was, the Army was secondary to RAF operations in Kuwait and then the carries were given the green light. 20 years on, following the Iraq & Afghanistan campaigns, the Army budgets gets ring-fenced. It tricky when you consider the complexity of conflicts of interests involved. When you federalize defense, you make it inherently political. You certainly wouldn't want get closer to some of the Europeans considering they seem to be sliding down a slippery slope to the right. That would compromise us in areas such as the CAP rebate etc.

Arkady

I’m not sure about the slippery slope business, I’m hoping that we’ve learned our lesson about post-depression slides to the far right, but we’ll see. Happy to hear your thoughts on that, especially your concerns about Germany. I’m not entirely sure of the connection between CAP reform and European defence co-ordination either, but if there is one then I would have thought our participation would give us a bigger hand – we have the most significant military after all, and the European defence policy only became active when we agreed to kick-start it with France. Also, while I see the risks, I can’t help but think that the federalisation of defence will help keep us out of foolish foreign adventures. On the other hand it might have prevented us from intervening in Iraq, and intervention I broadly support, but few of you will see that as a downside I’m sure.

sincers

Yes, sorry, I was just being controversial with my "slippery slope" comment, but with the Burqa laws, Roma expulsions and now this: <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-german-multiculturalism-failed>; - the Guardian's European readership will have hit the floor! My comment about CAP is my observation that anything we try and do in Europe will find its way back to our rebate. Its like, yes Britain, we will go to war with you over "x,y,z" as long as you tidy your room. I like that our military exploits could be checked by our European partners, although I fear we're all in glass houses on this one. I also worry about the loss of identity when it comes to these issues/conflicts. I think there's a real danger if we view the world like we were playing a giant game of RISK ie, the world is split into 5 major camps - Europe, the Yanks, Russia, the Middle East and the RoW and that in these camps we all think the same, pray the same and fight the same - that will surely end in tears.

Arkady

I think Merkel is right about multiculturalism as usually defined, incidently. Solidarity depends on a common language and no ghettos, and that's her point about Germany's failure to integrate the Turks. We've done a better job in Britian on the whole, but we're learning the same lessons too. The Roma expulsions are far more problematic and I hope Sarkozy cops it from the EU. I think the EU and NATO prove that we don't need to worry too much about 'loss of identity' in wider alliances, even proto-federal ones. But even if it did promote a common 'minimal identity' then as long as that's based on liberal secular values than I have no problem with it. We shouldn't be too precious about 'identity' which is always shifting in form and content. Anyway, we should already be the enemy of totalitarians and theocrats (if you excuse the tautology) regardless of our membersip of International organisations.

Ali

Well there won’t be anyone left at the Foreign Office to talk to anyone about this 30% cost in admin costs which I guess means people. James M probably had a nice glass of Champagne last night after what happened to the BBC.

sincers

Here-here. I would say, I think we like to tell ourselves we're good at integration, but I think we're actually getting worse. Ghettoism is a real problem in the UK. Its just that the ghettos are very large and we call it something else. Identity is an issue and people seem to cling to it more than ever before, and that brings real problems. The problem with being the enemy of totalitarianists and theocrats is that we end up being the enemy of the followers of totalitarianists and theocrats and that then breeds more of the .... don't make me spell it again!

Ali

If you want to see the total effects of the cuts go to here in the Red Book http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191696.pdf Page 82 has the table with the Departmental Programme and Administration Budgets mainly cuts. Got it wrong with the Foreign Office, it is “only 24%

Ali

<http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_191696.pdf>;

Arkady

@ADGS – There have been some local problems, especially with Somali ghettos, but (again, not my area of speciality) we’re generally pretty good at ensuring that there is a *churn* factor. An area might be a Greek immigrant centre one year, then they move out to Harringay and the Turks move in, then they move off and the North Africans set up… slow integration of the kind that’s always gone on, just on a larger scale. I think I’ve stressed before that I think immigration should be curtailed for environmental reasons though. I agree about identity politics – scourge of modern society. Hopefully we’ll find a way around it. Finally, I don’t agree with your ‘oppositional’ analysis, and even if I did it wouldn’t be a reason no to oppose totalitarianism. Hitler seemed to have a big following after all, and us carpet bombing German cities didn’t change that – complete material and ideological defeat did though. @Ali – I don’t think you answered my question elsewhere about what you would do? I just want to be sure that your answer is not ‘bury my head in the sand’. Osborne, for all is repulsiveness, made a good point today – Labour were insisting that the cuts should be 20% rather than the 25% feared – the review has delivered 19%. Are you just against cuts per se, or do you have an alternative plan? In short, it’s no good just whinging.

Ali

I think I said elsewhere that the balance of the cuts should be different in that it was being predicted that it was two thirds cuts one third tax increases. I think that balance is wrong and should have more tax in it. Tax is also a more flexible tool to use as it easier to change/flex it. The reduction should also be over a longer time period taking into account the economic cycle with a more Keynesian approach. It also doesn’t take into account the “windfalls” that will come available just before the next election once the government share of the banks is sold on. Quite a lot of what has happened has been dressed up to look like it is not so bad. eg Childrens Education – the core bit might not be touched but a lot of what is provided by others will be ie breakfast clubs, sport (cut by 30%) etc etc etc. The cuts are deeper than necessary as this is lot about changing the shape of the society in which we live ie Ideological. Finally since when did the BBC become a source of public spending to be tapped for things other than TV/Radio/Education/Info distribution etc ? £145 pounds year is great value for what we get so why try and knacker it into submission because an ex Australian objects to some decent competition. Compare that to Skys ARPU of around £485 for not a great lot of content except football and movies.

ADGS

Arkady - that wasn't me you meant there, was it? Though I do agree re: identity politics, as it happens. Certainly I'm with you that the 'they're only doing this because we were mean to them' appeaser's approach is nonsensical and self-defeating - and even if it were not, would still be dishonorable.

Ali

Arkady: Well now it is all out what do you think of the fairness debate that is underway which I guess will intensify as the “stones” of the announcement get turned to see what is underneath ? How would you approach the issue ? The feedback from the IFS is pretty interesting and the gloss around Education is becoming a bit tarnished as even if the current account is seemingly being maintained the number of pupils goes up over the period so it is probably quite a lot less for quite a few kids. Nobody has made much yet about the capital reduction in Education of 60% over the 5 year period. I am not sure if the 2010/11 Capital number which the 2014/15 number is compared against is pre the cuts in school building earlier this year so it might be even bigger than 60%. 600 schools over the 5 years will be rebuilt/refurbished but that is replacement rate of just over 3% a year (there are 3225 publically paid for secondary schools in England with 3,146,080 pupils) which is not sustainable to keep up standards. Reminds me of short term policies of the days of Mrs T and the catch up that was required once the Conservatives got kicked out. It is all a bit depressing really, the LibDems will be hammered at the next Election and it is going to rain all weekend

Papa

The problem with the tax vs cuts argument of increasing tax, is that the public sector is inefficient and we are currently wasting a lot of money. That means that taking tax off people and then recycling it into indiscriminate public spending is pulling money out of the real economy - people's pockets, businesses etc. and ploughing it back into what has become an overblown, overspending culture. Arguably the answer is therefore to make the cuts, trim the waste and then increase the tax take - but put the money into the places it needs to be efficiently. The schools capital spending is a prime example. There is no point increasing this or maintaining it while we continue to operate the current Labour PFI system which was delivering years of debt to schools for poor quality work (not in every case but evidence and reports show that to be a justified generalisation.) Money like this is simply filtering out to the massive private firms that grew fat off PFI. My suggestion would be dismantle that, start using smaller local firms that may charge more but have a genuine interest and pride in what they are building and get the money into the local economy, then pick the spending back up. As an example of the pie in the sky spending still going on. Yesterday's Guardian Online article about how the cuts were too deep, had an automated Guardian jobs ad pop up next to it. This was for a social housing out of hours manager in Portsmouth. Salary £35k to £39k, 37 hours a week flexi-time. Not exactly clear what the role does (money well spent on that advert) but brilliantly said while most of the role's hours were in-hours a small amount would need to be out-of-hours to keep in touch with what an out-of-hours service needed and because of this the candidate must be good at managing their time efficiently. Now, I know this sounds dangerously Littlejohn. But a) why is an out-of-hours council homes manager working mainly in-hours, b) why then is this a £40k job (in Portsmouth not London remember c) shouldn't it go without saying that for £40k you should be able to manage your time? In principle I'm happy to pay more income tax for better public services, but until this nonsense is sorted out, I do not want to do so.

ADGS

The 'public sector is inefficient, money in private pockets' argument is just Thatcherism. Yes, you can find individual examples which will support it, but overall it ignores the big picture, supported by retail and banking statistics - in a depression, the private sector gets scared. So individuals don't spend, and banks don't lend, because they're quite understandably saving their money against potential further catastrophe. So if the public sector then gets scared too, *nobody* is spending. Exactly what Keynes knew you shouldn't do, exactly what Osborne is doing.

Papa

I've got no interest in subscribing to schools of thought be they Thatcherism, Brownite, or Keynesian. The public sector is necessary and often does a great job. There are many things the private sector cannot supply properly and doesn't - (from universal healthcare to trains). But our actual UK public sector has spent a decade getting more and more heavily overblown and wasting money. Just because they are pro-public spending, Keynes' theories do not mean wasting money is good. We need a public sector delivering money efficiently to the frontline not middle managers and fat cat oursourcing firms and consultants. (Witness the threat to close an amazing maternity department at the Whittington by a bunch of overpaid health trust managers). The UK public sector appears to be incapable of righting itself. While it might bring more short term pain, the private individual, private sectors and banking industry shying away from spending and instead saving money will put us in a better position in the long term. It also means that if these cuts prove too deep there is something in the bank to help us along in two year's time. Continuing to waste money left, right and centre on the country credit card is not the answer.

ADGS

You may not think you're signed up to an ideology but, simply by making 'credit card' comparisons between national and household finances, you implicitly and perhaps unwittingly are. And it's an ideology which has never worked before but hey, I hope for all our sakes that you and Georgie boy are right about it working this time.

andy

-Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people.