Skip to main content

Don't believe a word of it - cuts are cuts

Jobs, that is what it comes down to, and wages, and taxes. The reason for the coalition, the coming together of the Liberal Democrats and the Tories was to clear the deficit — so they said. They are failing, and failing miserably. Why? The answer was always there.  The best way to clear the deficit is to get people working for decent wages. The reason the deficit is not shifting is not because of profligate government spending. It is because of falling revenue. The premise that simply cutting spending will cut the deficit is what it is — simple.

Now you could go on cutting and cutting spending in the hope that the deficit will turn around. But the more you cut the more likely it is that you impact on revenue. Surely that is the lesson to be learned. But it isn't a new lesson. It is what several economist warned four years ago.

The problem with cuts is that it  begs the question of what to cut and that produces conflict about political priorities. The Tories will say they couldn't cut enough because the Liberal Democrats wouldn't let them. The Liberal Democrats will say look the Tories would have cut more savagely — 'we have held them back'.  Neither really gives an answer.

Another erroneous assumption runs on the lines that there is 'inefficiency' and we can cut without cutting front line services. I have no doubt there is inefficiency or 'red tape'. "Let's cut the red tape! they declare. It is a common theme and most people who hear it approve. Well, of course they do. Nobody likes red tape. So what then is the problem. The problem is 'red tape' doesn't come in a box labelled 'red tape'. So cutting it is difficult without also affecting the 'front line'. And this leads me to the next problem - the 'front line'. It is a politically expedient term and also has some erroneous assumptions.

The worst of these assumptions is that 'front line' can somehow be separated from the 'back room'. But it can't. 'Front line' staff often complain of excessive 'form filling' or 'paper work'. "if only they can get on with their jobs!' Again it is to simplistic an assumption.

Imagine the police operating without 'paperwork'. Would any prosecution succeed? I doubt it. Unfortunately paperwork is necessary. It is just as necessary in clinical services. Imaging being treated without your doctor having access to any of your notes.

No, the problem with 'paperwork' is that much of it is necessary. Of course a lot of it is not, but deciding what is and what is not is difficult. Furthermore it doesn't come in a box labeled 'necessary paperwork'.

This is why I am always sceptical of politicians who sell cuts on the grounds of 'efficiency' or 'cutting red tape' - not because I don't want 'efficiency' or to cut 'red tape'. It is that they don't really know what they are talking about when they use those terms and neither do I. I can of course come up with examples but, and it is a big but, all these examples don't fit together into a clear comprehensive policy that will achieve very much in relation to the deficit.

The government said that they would protect the NHS. But the NHS has had £20 billion of cuts. The government says these are 'efficiency savings'. But we see the result of these so-called 'efficiency' cuts - a health system which the BMA has warned several times is on the precipice.

There is no quick or easy fix to the deficit. It needs an economic strategy beyond the bounds of electoral timetables. Now the Chancellor is pushing spending because of the election, not because it is the right thing to do for the economy. We are in political and not economic decision making.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't

Noise pollution puts nature at risk

 "I just want a bit of peace and quiet!" Let's get away from all the hustle and bustle; the sound of endless traffic on the roads, of the trains on the railway, and the planes in the sky; the incessant drone; the noise. We live in a world of man-made noise; screeching, bellowing, on-and-on in an unmelodious cacophony.  This constant background noise has now become a significant health hazard.   With average background levels of 60 decibels, those who live in cities are often exposed to noise over 85 decibels, enough to cause significant hearing loss over time.  It causes stress, high blood pressure, headache and loss of sleep and poor health and well-being.   In nature, noise has content and significance.  From the roar of the lion, the laughing of a hyena,  communication is essential for life; as the warning of danger, for bonding as a group or a pair, finding a mate, or for establishing a position in a hierarchy - chattering works.  Staying in touch is vital to working

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba