One of the advantages to living in London is that when something really big happens in this country, it tends to be happening on my doorstep. Take today’s big event – a mass of screaming students, a police presence, unions travelling from afar to the big City because of the blues and lots of kettles on the go. It’s not every day I get to attend the Oxford vs Cambridge Boat Race so it’ll nice to toddle along to it this afternoon.
There is, of course, another large event taking place in London today, the TUC’s national demonstration, this one focused on the coalition cuts and calls for an alternative.
While I sense there exists strong and convincing arguments against the speed of the cuts that the coalition is bringing in, it is difficult to really believe in them when the main Opposition struggles to fall behind a distinct narrative that it not only believes in but is also a clear alternative to what the Government is trying to do. Portugal being the latest country to require a bailout should be a timely reminder that the UK has it all to lose if it gets this wrong and it is difficult to argue against balancing the books as quickly as possible. “Moral indignation and political failure” as The Times had it yesterday, ‘student politics’ as many of the rest of Ed Miliband’s detractors call it. I’m inclined to agree.
Perhaps there is time for a hero of the left to rise above the fray and show real leadership against the Osborne’s and Clegg’s of this country. Until then, protests will just seem like a lot of noise over not very much.
I’ll be at the boat race rather than the marches in body today, I can’t say I’ll really be at either in spirit.
#1 by James on March 26, 2011 - 11:27 am
I don’t agree with Jeff!
OK, I half agree with Jeff. The main opposition in London has failed to set out an alternative, which would be raising more and fairer revenue, protecting the poorest, and telling the Tories that yes, the deficit is not out of kilter in historical terms, and that slashing spending now, in a “recovery”, is economic incompetence on a substantial scale.
But that’s not the fault of the marchers, or those whose services are being squeezed or jobs lost. Lions led by donkeys. I personally hope they give Ed an almighty boo if he speaks.
#2 by Una on March 26, 2011 - 12:44 pm
Well I’m sure there will be plenty privileged rich folk escaping from the messy disgruntled masses to enjoy some pimms at the boat race
#3 by Spoonsy on March 26, 2011 - 2:16 pm
On the subject of needing cuts, I’d normally agree – but that was before Cameron et al found the millions necessary to bomb another Middle Eastern Country.
I know it’s fashionable for politicians these days to get their premiership underway with a good old cruise-missiling up the junta, but surely this should have fallen victim to the age of austerity?
At the risk of going off topic, I can’t help but feel for all those Libyans who’ve suddenly been plunged into the deep end of the ‘it’ in ‘in it together’.
And on the subject of the marchers… What else can they do?
#4 by dcomerf on March 26, 2011 - 3:00 pm
Nonsense Jeff. Go and read some Krugman. Austerity will increase deficits by reducing employment and output. This leads to debt deflation in which the real value of the debt increases with the effort to pay it off.
What we want is an employment boost and hopefully some inflation that will effectively write down the value of the bad debts. Even if we had no worthwhile projects to undertake in this process we should follow the Keynesian prescription of digging holes and refilling them. However, we do have plenty of projects we’d like to undertake: universal home insulation, renewable generating capacity, electricity grid strengthening, rail electrification, tram expansion, electrification of vehicle fleet, carbon capture R&D, breeder & fusion R&D – probably roughly in this order.
#5 by Douglas McLellan on March 27, 2011 - 3:12 pm
My problem with the Keynesian solution is that at some point spending will still have to come down which will still mean cuts. I repeat – at some point we will have to reduce our spending. And that will mean cuts. And the cuts will bave to be further than now as the debt will be even higher.
Can someone point me to where in Britain economic history were the economy was strong enough to both repay a high level of debt and increase spending on services?
Portugal have a high level of debt. They cant borrow any more. Why should the UK be any different if we continue to borrow?
#6 by Jeff on March 27, 2011 - 7:16 pm
I don’t think anyone is suggesting “increasing spending on services”, just not decreasing them by quite so much.
The UK is different because of the potential strength and scope of its economy. There is £10bn-£20bn of extra income tax receipts that Osborbe hadn’t banked on since he became Chancellor. I guess the argument goes that we can wait until growth is 2%/3% of GDP and cuts will be easier to swallow then and, crucially, the extra cost of borrowing will be worth it because less people will have lost their jobs.
#7 by Douglas McLellan on March 27, 2011 - 7:58 pm
But look at the protests. If they were just about cuts to job centres and employment programmes then I could agree with what you say.
But they are not. They are about cuts full stop. Every niche group is out complaining that the cuts to them and their area of interest is detrimental to the country in a heinous way. So they can never be cut. Ever. Unless the economy does so well that we can repay both the debt and maintain the services there will be cuts and all we are doing is moving the date of the protests.
In 1976 when the UK had to go to the IMF the UK debt was 54% of the economy with interest payments at 2.8% of the economy. Now, we have debt at 60% of the economy and are paying 2.9% of the economy as debt repayments. How much more can we afford to borrow? At what stage do repayments become unaffordable?
#8 by Jeff on March 27, 2011 - 8:12 pm
I think you are conflating the “Keynesian solution” and yesterday’s protests a bit too much there Douglas. The Socialist Worker placards said quite clearly “Stop All the Cuts” which is just daft. Just because a placard called for it, it doesn’t make it part of Keynes’ philosophy though.
I can understand you trying to change the debate to ‘any cuts’ vs ‘no cuts’, it’s the only debate you are likely to win after all. Darling’s plan of halving the deficit in four years feels right in comparison to demolishing the deficit in one parliamentary term.
Of course you are not going to please all of the niche groups whatever the correct solution is; but more people are against your coalition’s plans than for them, and they can’t all be economically illiterate, surely.
#9 by Douglas McLellan on March 27, 2011 - 8:51 pm
“I think you are conflating the “Keynesian solution†and yesterday’s protests a bit too much there Douglas.”
Perhaps. The any cuts vs no cuts is the Scottish Greens argument isnt it? Have they not positioned themselves as the only party that wants to use the Scottish parliaments powers to raise taxes so that cuts dont need to happen? What is the difference between the Socialist Worker Placard saying Stop All Cuts and Patrick Harvie standing up at many demos and saying the same thing?
I am not calling anyone economically illiterate. But I have taken a side so I seek to defend that side. I am happy on my side and, in so far as I can, believe the economic arguments on my side instead of the economic arguments another side may present. After all, on my desk are three books with three different points of view regarding economics (The Spirit Level, Wealth of Nations and How an Economy Grows and Why it Crashes).
#10 by Jeff on March 27, 2011 - 9:27 pm
You are mischaracterising the Scottish Greens position. Again, I don’t know if you are doing so wilfully in order to better the Lib Dem’s chances of winning a debate, any debate.
The Greens, as far as I am aware at least, are looking to use the tax varying powers to offset the effect of the cuts. There will be cuts, but lets raise taxes to minimise them. They are not seeking to increase the Scottish budget, just not make it be as low as it is looking set to be. The difference between Patrick Harvie and the Socialist Worker placard is that Patrick is open and honest enough to say that tax rises are necessary to plug the gap. Given that Holyrood does not (yet) have borrowing powers, the Green argument is not one in favour of increasing the budget that I can see.
“the only party that wants to use the Scottish parliaments powers to raise taxes so that cuts dont need to happen” – For me, the second part of that line is just flat out wrong.
There’s nothing wrong with people being happy on whatever side of the debate they choose to be on, but they shouldn’t mischaracterise the opposing side.
#11 by Douglas McLellan on March 28, 2011 - 9:10 am
I am totally insignificant when it comes to being a Lib Dem and winning a debate. I have no position with the Lib Dems and my utterances on any given topic probably mean nothing to anyone.
All I am going on is the Scottish Greens own website and public statements.
I can see lots of statements along the lines of “Only Greens are offering an alternative to the cuts to public services” and “do we need a Scottish Government prepared to stand up to that cuts agenda and ask big business and the richest to pay more, or should Holyrood simply be passing the cuts on?” etc.
What I cannot see is where they would actually cut expenditure. I can see statements about tax rises though.
The manifesto may prove me wrong though. Oh, and there has been lots of mischaracterisation of the Lib Dems since May 2010.
#12 by Jeff on March 28, 2011 - 11:37 am
Fair enough, the Greens do deserve to be challenged on what they would cut but that at least recognises that, say, £1bn of cuts offset by £300m of revenue raising is an overal decrease and not an overall increase, as originally suggested.
#13 by Top Tory Aide on March 26, 2011 - 5:16 pm
I think this is the sort of “student politics” that Jeff referenced. Such a daft remark. What absolute drivel.
#14 by Jeff on March 26, 2011 - 7:28 pm
There was plenty of Pimms sloshing around, to be fair….!
For daft remarks, see Ed Miliband saying today’s struggle is similar to the apartheid battle. Bizarre.
#15 by Doug Daniel on March 26, 2011 - 9:29 pm
I had a pretty good job before the Tories got in. Two days after their emergency budget, the jobs of me and several colleagues were under great. After 12 weeks of unemployment (including benefits) I eventually git another job.
Net result? I pay about half the tax I used to. Which part of my story has helped Britain get out of the deficit?
#16 by Douglas McLellan on March 27, 2011 - 3:00 pm
Depends on how much you were being paid indirectly by the government I suppose.
If the government was funding your salary only a small amount was offset by your tax and NI payments. Even taking into account 12 weeks of benefit payments, surely you paying tax on a job the government doesnt fund menas the government has both a lower outlay (i.e. paying for your job) and is recovering the benefits paid through your taxes? Does that not reduce the deficit in a very very very small way?
Of course governments, local government and NHS Boards in particular, have an epic track failure when trying to reduce spend on staffing. Like firing nurses and they paying twice the amount to nursing agencies to cover staff shortages. Until idiotic activities like that are addressed there will always be a problem of paying for services.
#17 by Indy on March 27, 2011 - 10:12 am
If I lived in England I would have been there. The cuts down south are appalling because they are motivated by ideology as much – if not more – than necessity. And they are so reckless. That’s the thing that really gets to me. To be honest I don’t keep up that much with the detail of what is going on down south but when you read about what is proposed for the NHS etc I just think they don’t know what they are doing. They are like children playing a game without thinking through the consequences. It will all go horribly wrong.
#18 by Allan on March 27, 2011 - 10:50 pm
Sorry but there are strong and convincing arguments against the cuts (or at least those cuts proposed), unfortunately it is proposed by people who beleave that there should be no cuts. Yes, the cuts programme is to far and too fast. But it is also in the wrong places. It is concentrated on reduced or cancellation of services. The cuts should fall on middle management and on the wages of “heads of service”. However the biggest problem with the cuts is that a byproduct is the removal of money from the economy, drying up the flow of money from workewr to shop to worker to shop, all in one fell swoop.
The third front that should be opened up to attack Osborne’s “Scorched Earth” policy is the rapid de-regulation which has occured in the past 10 months of taxing companies and corporations. A harbinger was the “sweetheart” deal which saw HMRC drop its 10 year case against Vodaphone. While some tax loopholes were closed during last weeks budget, may more were opened up allowing companies to get awat with paying minimum tax rates – the measure of the 5% tax rate on companies with offshore “treasury operation” being one such measure that gives an implied green light for tax avoidance.
#19 by Indy on March 28, 2011 - 1:20 pm
I don’t think it’s a cuts versus no cuts argument. It’s not even just about the level and speed of cuts. What is most concerning is the way it is being done.
There’s a criticism that is often made of devolved government in Scotland of being too managerial and there’s an element of truth in that. But the Tories and the Lib Dem numpties who are acting as their human shields have gone way too far in the opposite direction.
Who in their right mind thinks that it is sensible to go for a radical restructuring of public services in the middle of a global economic crisis? That is plain bonkers. People need STABILITY at a time like this, not ideologically driven experimentation.
Up here the government went to local authorities, health bords etc back in early 2009 and said we are looking at cuts over the next few budgetary cycles, we want you to protect frontline services – everything else is at risk. That is what the UK Government should have done as well but they haven’t!
Instead, from what I hear from friends down south the cuts to local government are recklessly endangering the delivery of services that people rely on. I am not talking about add-ons but very basic things like home care services. In theory this gap will be filled by David Cameron’s Big Society nonsense. But who believes that really? What will happen is that people will just lose the services. In some councils they are withdrawing all services for children with special educational needs. Not cutting back on them – pulling them entirely. That is NOT necessary, nor can it possibly be justified. Even if you accept the need for cuts in its entirity they are making the cuts in the wrong places.
#20 by Indy on March 28, 2011 - 1:32 pm
A further point – the economic argument is important but it is not the whole story. There is no economic benefit in ensuring that elderly people are supported to live out their lives with dignity and autonomy. The argument for doing that is one of basic human decency and that is what a lot of those people were marching for in my opinion – and as I said I would have been there too if I lived in England.