AMONG the many things that worry me about the prospect of a Tory general election victory, is that under the current circumstances, Cameron would have a mandate for punitive cuts in public spending.
For the first couple of years of his leadership, Cameron tried to maintain the façade of a party committed to meeting the spending plans of the government, at least in the early years of a Tory administration. But their commitment to public spending was never deeper than that paper the press release was printed on; constant Tory carping about Labour “not fixing the roof while the sun shone” was code for the party’s antipathy to all forms of investment in public services.
So when the Tories claimed that Labour “wasted” billions of pounds of public money, they were of course being genuine: they objected to new schools and hospitals because they’ve always seen such policy priorities as the weird obsession of the Marxist classes.
And when Tories regularly, inevitably, consistently and boringly bang on about the increase in the number of public sector workers under Labour, they’re not just complaining about “street football co-ordinators” or whatever; they genuinely resent the fact that money which might otherwise have been spent on tax cuts was used instead to employ teachers, doctors and nurses.
Cameron was never comfortable with the commitment to Labour’s spending plans; most of his party were aghast. So it must have been a relief to them that the recession finally gave them the excuse they wanted to revert to type. They can now boast about how much they’re going to slash from public spending. And, like Thatcher before him, Cameron can pretend that this “fiscal discipline” has been forced upon him by the actions of his predecessor.
Alan Johnson believes that Cameron is a good guy but that his party is unreconstructed and right wing. I agree with him about the latter part. But the swiftness and the glee with which Cameron embraced the new (old) Tory “slash and burn” philosophy suggests Alan was wrong in his assessment of Cameron.
With the polls looking more favourable for the Tories every week, they’ve decided they no longer need to keep up the pretence of being a One Nation Conservative Party. You can almost hear their sighs of relief from here.
It’s time Labour reminded voters that Tory cuts would fall not just in other people’s schools and hospitals, but in their own.
Back to top
Monday 16 February 2009 at 11:09 pm
A very misguided post. There is no conflict between One Nation Toryism and the careful management of public money. The report you refer to was commissioned by ConservativeHome. It is not party policy.
However, and it is a big however, whoever wins the next election is going to come under great pressure to cut public spending. Economic circumstances will almost certainly dictate it. And it is disingenuous of either of us to pretend otherwise.
Monday 16 February 2009 at 11:25 pm
There is more evidence that there has been a gleeful retreat away from New Labour and back to old style socialism. What with nationalisation, the country possibly having to go cap in hand to the IMF, workers out on strike there is concrete evidence for this…. and unfortunately you cant lay the blame on 18 years of Tory rule. You could lay the blame on the guy who became Chancellor in 97.. what was his name?
I wonder how many of you and your colleagues will be having a picture with the Prime Minister on your electoral address?
Monday 16 February 2009 at 11:40 pm
I agree. I agree that whichever government gets in owing to the now 1945 sized debt there is a likely to be a 1946 style poverty. There will be massive cuts. In every area of life. If only we had a large navy to sell off like last time. All we have to sell is the PFI debt we are buying back at a net loss of some 30%.
the recession isn’t Labour’s fault. The debt mountain before the recession is.
Yet strangely I would still like you to take over LabourList.
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 12:00 am
I’m all for drastic cuts in public spending myself. The current level is clearly unaffordable, and on a purely selfish yet typical-of-the-electorate-at-large note, I would like to keep as much of my hard earned as I can, therefore sustaining it with large tax rises is going to have me looking to move abroad. Somewhere hot, where the wind is cool and the taxes are LOW.
If you want a dig at Cameron Tom, have you seen his absurd response to the West Lothian Question? Simply have the English MP’s form a committee and vote on England only issues. Well why didn’t WE think of that? That’s MUCH better than having regional assemblies like the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, where decisions are taken closer to the people that they effect. David Cameron obviously thinks the principal of subsidiarity is overrated? Strange that that conflicts with his apparant “policies” then eh? Hmm……
For me the answer seems simple. Have an English Parliament in the same way that the Scottish, Welsh and NI have their own regional assemblies. The Westminister can go back to what it should be doing, legislating for the whole of the UK, and not focusing on England only issues.
That always bugged me btw. Tony Blair and the Cabinet would come up with some awesome scheme, advertise it on the TV and at the bottom of the screen it would clearly display “applies to England only”. I used to think, why the hell are the government focusing on England only issues? Isn’t it their job to govern NATIONALLY? It’s unfair to the regions aswell. Health policy for England only had the full backing of the Department of Health, yet Welsh, Scottish and NI policy was devised by our MUCH smaller, MUCH more poorly funded, Assembly Health Department or whatever it was called.
Irritating.
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 12:17 am
Just because you can spend, does not mean you should. Spending should have a purpose and get results.
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 12:26 am
“There are 1,162 quangos in the UK, running at a total cost to the taxpayer of £64 billion, equivalent to £2,550 per household. Even under the Cabinet Office’s restrictive definition of quangos, the cost of these bodies has risen 50% in the last ten years.
UK quangos now employ an army of almost 700,000 bureaucrats.” Taxpayers’ Alliance
That’s where I believe cuts should be targeted.
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 2:09 am
What Iain says is true (at least the bit about the next government being up excrement river sans paddle with regards the money. I believe the action of one G. Brown giving it large with the next 20 years tax income hasn’t helped this; I’d rather pay the extra 2.5% vat, ta).
Whatever happens in the UK government elections, the next government is gonna be a bit cash strapped. But there is a silver lining there. This skintness may help reverse what I can only refer to as Fascism by the current Government.
Please note, Tom that when I use that word, I am not the glib troll of your earlier post; I know very well the meanings and connotations inherent in that word, and whilst the UK “appears” pretty liberal at the moment, I believe that as of today with the new provisions of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 coming into effect, that our nation is, on paper, a Fascist state.
According to just some of the many, many laws your party have brought in to “protect” us from the threat of islamic terrorism (that we strangely managed without in the 70’s and 80’s despite the IRA’s threat):
It is now illegal to film or photograph a policeman if he chooses to tell you not to. Even if he’s (for instance, not saying they would) beating your friend up because he’s black (and maybe called R. King?).
It is now illegal to state your mind on anything the Police feel may cause public unrest or violence, even if you speak the truth.
It is now illegal to protest at the Government.
It is now illegal to gather in numbers of more than 3 without permit.
If the police wish to, they can stop and reach you for any reason they like, under the nebulous threat of terrorism. If you resist this affront, you are liable for arrest.
In a year or two’s time, it will be illegal to not have an ID card or be on the NIR. Participation will be mandatory, and from my understanding, you’ll get us by slowly designating more and more documents to need NIR (National Identity Register) inclusion. Parasitic viability at it’s worst.
All these things are WRONG. Not just “I differ with your opinion” wrong but “I will fight you to stop you doing this wrong”.
I’ll leave this overlong post that you will not, can not and dare not respond to, for you have no counter arguments to play, with a quote from a document that I wish we had; something I never thought I’d envy, from the US Constitution:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”. If only our forefathers had made that one of the few written documents in our largely unwritten constitution.
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 4:32 am
Come on lets have it on the record, Labour will not cut public spending in any way shape or form in the next parliament?
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 7:36 am
Tom.
Lets keep it simple.
Where is the money comming from to continue to support the public sector.
We have more people employed by the state than workers earning the money to pay for them.
Your attitude to all this tells us why we are in the trouble we are.
Labour just never understand the most basics of economics.
You cannot continue to spend more than you earn.
Why can you not understand this.
Is it because you cannot face up to the truth.
I think you want to stay in your fantacy world of Dr Who.
So Tom just try and think about it.
In life what we want and what we get depend on what we can afford.
What is the first thing you would do if you were in deep debt,and lost your job.
Would you borrow even more or
Cut back on your spending first.
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 8:14 am
Pot and Black come to mind, Tom
The Tories are at least thinking
they will never get my vote, but maybe some respect
new labour lost that in 2002 – and aint given me no reason to reconsider.
dead in two years, totally dead. Deservedy dead
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 8:41 am
I don’t see that there is any alternative to punitive cuts in public spending whoever wins the next election. Where is the money going to come from to sustain the current level of spending? I think significant cuts in public spending could actually lead to a marked improvement in quality of life for the vast majority of the population. Imagine not being bombarded with Government propaganda through radio and TV all day long, not being hounded by spiteful jobsworths because they’ve all been sacked. Not having fake charities preaching at you about food, drink, motoring etc., not having to pay £125 per hour for a nurse who gets £15, not having the Highways Agency closing all the motorways. There is an endless list of cuts that could be made which would improve our lives. No need to cut any frontline Health or Education spending at all.
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 8:45 am
Apart from it was GB’s pursuit of all these new hospitals and schools part funded by PFI that has helped put us in such a big black debt hole! Yes there was a huge problem with the lack of investment under the last Tory goverment but Blair suddenly buggered off round the world committing the UK to various dubious unilateral actions while enjoying his huge Bro’mance with Bush and left Brown basically running the show here.
Now I understand the reasoning behind the mass clamour for all these new buildings, but it would be nice if we had the quality of people to stick in them. It would also have been nice it the decision on what was built was made by the local communities with the local area in mind, but no! Whole communities have been amalgamated by Whitehall civil servants, hospitals plonked here and there and given “roles”, assigning one hospital to be maternity, that one heart, this one is now the A&E. Specialising hospitals but reducing flexibility and ignoring the pleas of patients that don’t want to travel hours to their regional specialist hospital to have their baby or receive treatment for their conditions, they want to go to the local hospital, which has had its departments closed so it can focus on its speciality.
On Schools, the saying you can’t judge a book by its cover seemingly applies to schools. Just because you make a school nice a new doesn’t make it good. Just chucking money at things doesn’t mean you improve their quality, state schools pupils have been totally failed, their ability to compete with independent/grammar/charity schools is practically non-existent and near criminal, yet the hard left of the party keep blaming these schools for all societies ill’s! We have the ability to have world class teaching, but it seems not in state schools.
All in all, it’s been a disappointment hasn’t it, we had such high hopes in the beginning but what have we achieved? At the movement it looks like we are going to be voted out, leaving the country in a worse position than we came it. I mean.. how the hell does that happen, a few years ago the thought would have been laugable.
Hey ho!
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 8:54 am
Lets see Budget deficit £100 billion and rising.
Lets borrow some more.
Oops people will not lend to us.
Tom, your argument would make sense if Labour were fiscally prudent. But they have been spendthrift.
I say no more.
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 9:09 am
Iain – is it not just as disingenuous to pretend that there isn’t a strong Keynesian argument for using public spending to keep the economy afloat and jobs around during a recession?
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 9:17 am
All Tory Governments slash public spending. The next one will be no different. Cameron’s ‘Mr.Nice Guy’ act does not fool me.
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 9:35 am
the problems for the labour party when seeking re-election will be to convince we voters and tax payers that our taxes have been spent on teachers,nurses and doctors and not on layer upon layer of bureaucracy, on incompetently devised and executed i.t. schemes, on creating a surveillance society with diminished civil liberties, an obsession with human rights but no mention of responsibilities and funding questionable expense claims !
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 9:52 am
Come on Tom, this is a ridiculous line to take. You think Cameron wants to spend five years trying to bring our economy back from the brink rather than setting his own agenda? You think he wants to waste an entire Parliament clearing up Labour’s mess? Of course he doesn’t.
Cameron doesn’t have a choice – slashing public spending is the only option. Haven’t you read a newspaper recently?
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 10:14 am
the prospect of a Tory general election victory
Glad you can see it coming, Tom. And I can’t wait for the punitive cuts in public spending. They can start by getting rid of all the fake charities – like ASH, CRUK, BHF, and the RCP.
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 10:19 am
Well done, you’ve awoken the Dale monster!
At the local level David Cameron’s spin is clearly revealed as not worth the soundbites it’s issued on. For example, he proclaims the importance of the voluntary sector yet his councillors squeeze and chop the budgets that support the modest handouts to local voluntary groups. These are what they call “efficiency savings”.
Labour should rise to the challenge, ask your local Tories what they mean by Labour waste. Are all the extra teachers, doctors, nurses or police a waste? Was fixing the leaking roofs at your local schools or buying them some books and computers a naughty thing to do?
Above all we need to get better at being in opposition in local government ie much of the country. Be as unfair to their administrations as they are to ours. If nothing else it might get us prepared for the forthcoming decade if we should loose the next general election. But that’s not going to happen is it?
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 11:16 am
Where is the money coming from Tom? Investment in public services is great if it brings about improvements but that isn’t the question any more.
Where is Government going to get the money?
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 11:20 am
Amen. Completely agree with this article.
“they genuinely resent the fact that money which might otherwise have been spent on tax cuts was used instead to employ teachers, doctors and nurses”
Step forward slash and burn Richard. Predictably. (Sigh)
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 12:07 pm
I see the tories have plunged to a lead of just 20 points in a new Ipsos-Mori poll.
Rumours abound that Cameron is going to accept an “ejector seat” job leading a global financial advisory service rather than having to bear the ignominy of leading his party into a dismal electoral landslide.
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 12:16 pm
as the proprietor of probably the most interesting blog on the leftish side of british political life you may be interested to learn that there are rumours of a possible vacancy for a lead blogger on labourlist – are you interested ? c.v.’s will be checked !
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 12:20 pm
Perhaps Ani can tell us how much money has been wasted on :
2 wars
NHS IT system
ID cards
The Immigration system?
Any offers under £100 billion?
And what is there to see for it all?
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 12:50 pm
Mad, it’s unfair to mock the cheerleaders when their team is losing so badly.
All they have is their pom-poms and the hope that the game will be over soon.
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 12:52 pm
Don’t dis the pom-poms, mate.
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 1:02 pm
Simon
It is NEVER wrong to kick a man when he is down.
Tom
I like my pompoms… I grow them trained on 2 metre high stocks in a sunny place.
Errr You are talking dahlias?
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 2:21 pm
People, can we step back from the brink a little here. Whatever our political or national ideologies, be us Scottish Nationalists, British Unionists, socialists, conservatives, liberals or restrictionists, we can all agree on one thing.
We NEVER want to see Tom in a cheerleaders uniform. Especially not them skirts…..
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 2:59 pm
Math
I have just sprayed coffee on my keyboard..
It’s not a SKIRT you sassenach, it’s a KILT.
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 3:03 pm
Hey Tom, whatever happened to your polling updates?
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 3:03 pm
At least Jack McConnell’s “kilt” wasn’t 4 inches off the knee.
Not an image any of us want to see Tom in, I think you’ll agree.
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 3:08 pm
I want “punitive” cuts in public spending.
Whose money is it?
Every time I visit this blog I despair. You live a world of yesterday where there was a public consensus.
Atlee is dead, and so is the welfare state.
There should be a massive contraction of public spending, trimmed down to national security (and even then it should be severely capped), and free education, housing and health care for the very poor. If you did it this way, that free education and that free health care and that housing would be the best in the world.
Instead you silly buggers want everyone to be a winner. You want to fund “community cohesion” Identity Cards, “diversity training” and “initiatives”. You throw money at dying industries and fat cat bankers, you live a life of obscene perquisites at public expense, and expect us to fall over and believe you know best.
Well, you know what you can do.
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 3:29 pm
Madasafish, Nope, I think he meant skirt, complete with bobby sox…
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 3:36 pm
‘fiscal discipline’
There is no such thing. Money is an illusion. I think Thatcher was a great PM becuse she saw dreadful threats to our way of life and confronted them head-on. I never liked her as a person, and I have seen her in person, but I have since learned that people I don’t like are very – very – incredibly to a fool like me – valuable people.
The old false-modesty of the narcissist again. Maybe. Your decison. Doesn’t feel that way to me. Hi Theresa. I miss you honey but things had to be this way. I don’t want you back any more than you want me.
(This happened many years ago – I am now married to Kathy who is a star and far more wonderful).
Speaking of taking it back, GB, I take it back. Fight on man. Hi Guido, you’d say something similar would you, about taking it back? That’s your style.
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 3:50 pm
It’ll be all right, Harman is proposing that MPs who lose their seats at the next election or decide not to stand should get a big lump of money to tide them over the shock, that’s along with their nice hefty pensions.
Seems very odd to me, it’s not as if politicians are professionals or staff employees.
When I sign a contract for a given period I don’t expect a bung when the employer (electorate in this case) decides my services aren’t required.
Then again, labour politicians feel themselves entitled to rob the taxpayer blind.
On cutting public expenditure, about time someone decided to implement labours “promise” (that is an oxymoron of course, labour promises are normally untrue) to cutting out waste.
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 3:54 pm
One nation? No nation? WTF happened this past 11 years that THIS could happen?
Beardy bloke with sandals on a bicycle
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 3:59 pm
All these posting about the Tory cuts.
Can you not see we will have to, or please explain to me where the wealth is comming from to pay for it all.
I find it quite remarkable that people appear to think money grows on trees.
It just cannot go on.
There are so many stupid people out there that do not understand the the basics.
I suppose its years of labour education creating the lazy something for nothing generations.
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 4:08 pm
Will S. at 3.03pm: “Hey Tom, whatever happened to your polling updates?”
I take it you missed this one?
Tuesday 17 February 2009 at 5:09 pm
I think the mood of this country has changed a lot, and the government hasn’t realised it.
We’ve had 12 years of excessive government handouts, excessive government spending on public services, and we’ve had the increases in taxation to pay for it all.
We’ve all seen a shift to the left, to almost a sudo communist existance, where people have been lifted from poverty through simply being handed enough money so they are no longer below the poverty line, whole communities have entered a cycle of dependency where they exist entirelly on the benefits system, and we are all paying for it. The NHS has had it’s pockets stuffed with cash, yet can anyone here honestly say that all that cash has been spent wisely? Can anyone honestly say that the NHS has improved by the same multiple as it’s budget since 1997?
People have no stomach for this any more. They want to be paying less tax, they want to stop reading the papers and seeing people openly living from the public purse, they want to stop seeing millions and billions being thrown at anything other than essential projects, because they now associate it with coming directly from their pockets.
Personally, I put it down to public behaviour, public perceptions being cyclical. Right now, we are all crying out for a capitalist existance. Survival of the fittest, everyone works for what they have, no free rides, only essential spending on public services, no more cosmetic surgery on the NHS etc…
Yet, in 1997 we were all crying out for a more left wing existance. We wanted more investment in public services, we wanted more help for the weakest in society etc…
IMHO, and so it will be again. The public shifts between centre left and centre right over time. Now we want capitalism, centre right policies, country first etc… Give it 10 years and we’ll want Centre Left policies again.
This is why I think Blair was so good btw. He was a true centrist. There were times he could just lean to the left and placate in that direction, and other times when he could be a bit more hawkish and lean to the right a bit and placate there. The Tories couldn’t handle him because how do you tackle someone who is so close to your position to the people who matter? When it mattered, he could lean a bit to the right and take the thunder right out of the Tories, removing ANY clear water between them that the Tories could exploit.
In the current climate a Blair at the helm crying Hawk all over the place would be believable, supportable, and take away any incentive floating voters would have to drift to Cameron. Instead you have Brown. A clear socialist leftie. There is a chasm of clear water between him and Cameron, and given the public mood is now back to centre right capitalism, Cameron is the only choice available.
It’s ironic that Cameron has capitalised so much on something that has absolutely NOTHING to do with him. He’s just in the right place, leading the right party, at the right time.
You can all now commence throwing fruit in my general direction!