The Office of National Statistics revelation that the UK economy saw no economic growth in the final quarter of 2010 is extremely worrying. Worse still, the GDP figures published today by the ONS show that construction output actually fell by 3.3% in the final quarter of 2010, the largest fall since the height of the recession in early 2009.
But rather like latter-day equivalents to Emperor Nero, George Osborne and Nick Clegg refuse to accept that they've got it wrong blaming the cold weather instead! George Osborne says: "There is no question of changing a fiscal plan that has established international credibility on the back of one very cold month," (sic). He claims that to change course would “...plunge Britain into a financial crisis.” (sic)
Meanwhile the response to the ONS figures from the Tories’ ‘lackey in chief’ Nick Clegg, suggests that he’s emigrated to Planet Cameron. He is still referring an “economic recovery” which, according to the view from Planet Cameron, is still in its "early days". According to Nick Clegg these depressing economic indicators have apparently been caused by: "The government...doing the difficult work of putting the building blocks [to economic recovery] in place."
Most experts and people at the sharp end would beg to differ. For example, the Construction Products Association CEO, Michael Ankers, says: “After two quarters of relatively strong growth in the middle of 2010, these latest figures show that the economic recovery has stalled even before the full impact of the public sector spending cuts is felt.” He dismisses the Osborne’s argument that it’s all down to the weather. He says: “Although the poor weather in the last few weeks of the year undoubtedly had an impact on the construction industry, as it did in 2009, it is clear that the recovery in the construction industry has already petered out and that private sector growth is not coming through strongly enough.”
Of course the “strong growth in the middle of 2010” to which Michael Ankers refers was only brought about because of the measures introduced by the previous Labour Government. Labour’s new shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, says it is a matter of great concern that Britain’s economic recovery has now ground to a halt. His anxiety is shared by economists who are worried because the GDP figures for the last quarter are much worse than expected. Some believe it could mean that Britain may now suffer a double-dip recession after all; something Ed Balls expressed concerns about last summer. Furthermore, with inflation hitting 3.7% last month, there are also growing fears that the UK is heading for a double whammy caused by stagflation.
This Tory-led Government is becoming increasingly isolated and very few people now support its economic prospectus. Even the outgoing CBI chief, Sir Richard Lambert, has criticised the government’s inadequate growth strategy and is falling in line with Labour’s calls for measures to increase demand. In his last major speech as head of the CBI he said: "The sooner we can get output back up to the levels that were expected before the recession, the quicker government revenues will rise to narrow the fiscal gap. It's not enough just to slam on the spending brakes. Measures that cut spending but killed demand would actually make matters worse."
So what’s happened to the brave new world envisaged by Messrs Cameron, Clegg and Osborne who told us there would be a private sector led recovery. They claimed their drastic cuts to public spending wouldn’t affect demand and that the jobs they were axing would be absorbed by a dynamic, pristine, thrusting private sector. The reality is rather different with growth shrinking and construction output, one of the key economic drivers, set to fall by a further 2% in 2011.
What this Tory-led Government refuses to accept is that there is a strong interrelationship between the public and private sectors. Both need each other and taking an axe to one causes catastrophic blood loss in the other.
These are worrying times with George Osborne’s ideologically driven approach to the economy proving to be both inept and dangerous and the spectre of 1930s Britain looms ever larger.
Tuesday 25 January 2011
Friday 21 January 2011
THE TORIES HAVE NEVER LIKED THE CONCEPT OF THE NHS
This Tory-led coalition government has launched an ideological assault on the NHS.
The Bill introducing its reforms is more than three times longer than the Act which actually created the NHS in the first place! The King’s Fund has described it as “the biggest upheaval in the health service, probably since its inception”.
The bill provides for full scale and exclusive clinical commissioning by GPs, with an £80 billion budget each year. Meanwhile, national level commissioning, and many of the Department of Health’s current functions are to be placed with a new arms-length body to be known as the NHS Commissioning Board. The principal purpose of the new economic regulator at the heart of the NHS will be to promote and guarantee competition including general competition laws.
All hospitals will be required to become independent foundation trusts, strategic management in the NHS at the regional level will be removed, and Primary Care Trusts are to be abolished.
All organisations, whether commissioning or providing NHS services will be taken out of the public sector, without the established standards of public information, scrutiny and accountability. And there will be a requirement on commissioners to accept and use “any willing provider”.
It is clear than that the intention of this Tory-led initiative will create opportunities for profit-making in every part of the NHS including, for the first time, in the commissioning of services.
If this bill gets onto the statute book, it could lead to hospitals closing down and being lost to local people as a direct consequence of losing money due to the new competition regime. Similarly, GP consortia will also be allowed to financially collapse before being wound up and taken over, which could also lead to a diminution in service to local people.
And finally, surprise, surprise, the bill also removes any limits on the use of NHS hospital beds and staff to treat privately paying patients.
The Conservatives have never liked the NHS. Their recent damascene conversion is a sham and their rhetoric is a con. David Cameron’s professed support for the NHS is as worthless as his promise on VAT. As for the Liberal Democrats’ role in this, well they are beneath contempt.
The Bill introducing its reforms is more than three times longer than the Act which actually created the NHS in the first place! The King’s Fund has described it as “the biggest upheaval in the health service, probably since its inception”.
The bill provides for full scale and exclusive clinical commissioning by GPs, with an £80 billion budget each year. Meanwhile, national level commissioning, and many of the Department of Health’s current functions are to be placed with a new arms-length body to be known as the NHS Commissioning Board. The principal purpose of the new economic regulator at the heart of the NHS will be to promote and guarantee competition including general competition laws.
All hospitals will be required to become independent foundation trusts, strategic management in the NHS at the regional level will be removed, and Primary Care Trusts are to be abolished.
All organisations, whether commissioning or providing NHS services will be taken out of the public sector, without the established standards of public information, scrutiny and accountability. And there will be a requirement on commissioners to accept and use “any willing provider”.
It is clear than that the intention of this Tory-led initiative will create opportunities for profit-making in every part of the NHS including, for the first time, in the commissioning of services.
If this bill gets onto the statute book, it could lead to hospitals closing down and being lost to local people as a direct consequence of losing money due to the new competition regime. Similarly, GP consortia will also be allowed to financially collapse before being wound up and taken over, which could also lead to a diminution in service to local people.
And finally, surprise, surprise, the bill also removes any limits on the use of NHS hospital beds and staff to treat privately paying patients.
The Conservatives have never liked the NHS. Their recent damascene conversion is a sham and their rhetoric is a con. David Cameron’s professed support for the NHS is as worthless as his promise on VAT. As for the Liberal Democrats’ role in this, well they are beneath contempt.
Friday 14 January 2011
THERE HAS TO BE A BETTER WAY THAN ALL THIS SLASH AND BURN
JANUARY is a month when we usually look forward to the year ahead with a sense of hope and anticipation but the austerity measures being implemented by this Conservative-led Government have replaced hope for millions of British citizens with fear and anxiety.
A survey by Ipsos/MORI of 24 countries published on New Year’s Day found people in Britain were among the most pessimistic. One of the reasons was that three-quarters of our workers said they felt less secure in their job today than six months ago. This pessimism is fuelled by the slash and burn policy being pursued by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
There are clear parallels with the 1930s, which was the last time UK had the misfortune to be governed by a Conservative-Liberal coalition. Then, as now, the US used the power of the state to drag the country out of recession while Britain indulged in swingeing spending cuts that resulted in unprecedented unemployment and deprivation.
The experience of the 1930s, together with Barack Obama’s tax cuts and fiscal stimulus are proof that the ruthless spending cuts favoured by Cameron, Clegg and Osborne are unwarranted. The truth is they are making the same blunders as their 1930s counterparts.
What I find so infuriating is the brazen misinformation being peddled by the governing parties. They claim that under Labour, the country was living beyond its means but that is simply not true. The country’s pre-eminent economist, David Blanchflower, says the UK was hit by a once-in-a hundred-year financial crisis. That is why the UK’s deficit rose from 2.5% of GDP to 11.4% and why Government borrowing increased from 40% of GDP to 71%.
But Cameron, Clegg and Osborne are trying rewrite history and con the public into believing the size of Britain’s deficit was caused by Government spending when they know it was caused by a worldwide financial meltdown. They know the resultant global recession caused a collapse in tax revenues, including a massive drop in corporation tax. It was this that exacerbated the deficit, as well as an increase in welfare spending brought about by rising unemployment. Ironically, they actually supported Labour’s public spending plans until late 2008.
Now the Conservative-Liberal coalition is in power and the impact of their policies is starting to be felt. Police numbers are set to fall to a 10-year low. At least half a million public sector jobs are being axed and a similar number will go in the private sector too. Decent jobs in the private sector are few and far between. Children’s Surestart Centres are being closed. Libraries are under threat. Care homes for elderly people are being axed. Tuition fees are being tripled and education maintenance allowance has been abolished.
This Government is embracing Victorian values with a vengeance. Its talk about localism is a sham and its 'Big Society' is little better than a 21st century poor law, where charities deliver services once provided by democratically accountable public bodies.
But there is a better way where government invests in the future to support jobs and services to protect and enhance the quality of life for ordinary working people. So my plea to everyone who is sickened by the malicious policies of the Conservative-Liberal Government is to help Labour build a progressive coalition to counter these regressive policies and keep hope alive with Labour.
A survey by Ipsos/MORI of 24 countries published on New Year’s Day found people in Britain were among the most pessimistic. One of the reasons was that three-quarters of our workers said they felt less secure in their job today than six months ago. This pessimism is fuelled by the slash and burn policy being pursued by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.
There are clear parallels with the 1930s, which was the last time UK had the misfortune to be governed by a Conservative-Liberal coalition. Then, as now, the US used the power of the state to drag the country out of recession while Britain indulged in swingeing spending cuts that resulted in unprecedented unemployment and deprivation.
The experience of the 1930s, together with Barack Obama’s tax cuts and fiscal stimulus are proof that the ruthless spending cuts favoured by Cameron, Clegg and Osborne are unwarranted. The truth is they are making the same blunders as their 1930s counterparts.
What I find so infuriating is the brazen misinformation being peddled by the governing parties. They claim that under Labour, the country was living beyond its means but that is simply not true. The country’s pre-eminent economist, David Blanchflower, says the UK was hit by a once-in-a hundred-year financial crisis. That is why the UK’s deficit rose from 2.5% of GDP to 11.4% and why Government borrowing increased from 40% of GDP to 71%.
But Cameron, Clegg and Osborne are trying rewrite history and con the public into believing the size of Britain’s deficit was caused by Government spending when they know it was caused by a worldwide financial meltdown. They know the resultant global recession caused a collapse in tax revenues, including a massive drop in corporation tax. It was this that exacerbated the deficit, as well as an increase in welfare spending brought about by rising unemployment. Ironically, they actually supported Labour’s public spending plans until late 2008.
Now the Conservative-Liberal coalition is in power and the impact of their policies is starting to be felt. Police numbers are set to fall to a 10-year low. At least half a million public sector jobs are being axed and a similar number will go in the private sector too. Decent jobs in the private sector are few and far between. Children’s Surestart Centres are being closed. Libraries are under threat. Care homes for elderly people are being axed. Tuition fees are being tripled and education maintenance allowance has been abolished.
This Government is embracing Victorian values with a vengeance. Its talk about localism is a sham and its 'Big Society' is little better than a 21st century poor law, where charities deliver services once provided by democratically accountable public bodies.
But there is a better way where government invests in the future to support jobs and services to protect and enhance the quality of life for ordinary working people. So my plea to everyone who is sickened by the malicious policies of the Conservative-Liberal Government is to help Labour build a progressive coalition to counter these regressive policies and keep hope alive with Labour.
Tuesday 11 January 2011
AV IS BAD FOR DEMOCRACY
The central plank of the ‘Yes to AV’ campaign is disingenuous because its claims about AV being fairer than ‘First Past the Post’ are based on a false premise.
AV will make no difference to a large number of constituencies where candidates secure more than 50% of the votes cast. Even in the last general election - where popular support for the parties was closer than normal - more than a third of the candidates had over 50% of the vote.
In the other constituencies, introducing AV could see second or even third placed candidates ultimately winning. That is the very antithesis of democracy. Our existing system is considerably more democratic by comparison and is well understood by the electorate at large. How can it be right for fringe party supporters to have their vote counted several times, while those backing mainstream candidates only have one vote counted? By any measure of fairness that is just plain wrong.
Furthermore, at a time when the country is facing unprecedented cuts, this whole debate and referendum is a colossal waste of time and money, particularly when very few people actually want electoral reform. I have campaigned for the Labour Party in every local, European and general election since 1976 and I can honestly say nobody has ever raised this issue on the doorstep.
The Labour Party is Britain’s best vehicle to deliver progressive change and the outcome of the last general election offers an historic opportunity to rebuild Labour’s progressive credentials. That is why I am working for a majority Labour government at the next general election by appealing to those progressives who voted for other parties. By muddying the electoral waters through the introduction of AV, the guy ropes of Labour’s progressive big tent could be cut even before it is fully erected.
The Liberal Democrats, who are responsible for installing this vicious right-wing administration, hope that AV would create continuous coalition government and give them the chance to be perpetual kingmakers. But Liberal Democrats are not a national party and their support in a few regional enclaves is inadequate to propel them into government without doing shabby little deals behind closed doors. Their shameful pact with the Conservatives will create untold hardship to millions of citizens and is damaging our economic recovery.
Do we really want to increase the prospects of Liberal Democrats having influence in future governments, when under our existing system they could and should be virtually wiped out? I think not. That's why I don’t want to see them being thrown the lifeline of electoral reform.
AV is bad news for democracy, bad news for progressive change and bad news for the millions of people who need the return of a Labour government at the earliest opportunity.
AV will make no difference to a large number of constituencies where candidates secure more than 50% of the votes cast. Even in the last general election - where popular support for the parties was closer than normal - more than a third of the candidates had over 50% of the vote.
In the other constituencies, introducing AV could see second or even third placed candidates ultimately winning. That is the very antithesis of democracy. Our existing system is considerably more democratic by comparison and is well understood by the electorate at large. How can it be right for fringe party supporters to have their vote counted several times, while those backing mainstream candidates only have one vote counted? By any measure of fairness that is just plain wrong.
Furthermore, at a time when the country is facing unprecedented cuts, this whole debate and referendum is a colossal waste of time and money, particularly when very few people actually want electoral reform. I have campaigned for the Labour Party in every local, European and general election since 1976 and I can honestly say nobody has ever raised this issue on the doorstep.
The Labour Party is Britain’s best vehicle to deliver progressive change and the outcome of the last general election offers an historic opportunity to rebuild Labour’s progressive credentials. That is why I am working for a majority Labour government at the next general election by appealing to those progressives who voted for other parties. By muddying the electoral waters through the introduction of AV, the guy ropes of Labour’s progressive big tent could be cut even before it is fully erected.
The Liberal Democrats, who are responsible for installing this vicious right-wing administration, hope that AV would create continuous coalition government and give them the chance to be perpetual kingmakers. But Liberal Democrats are not a national party and their support in a few regional enclaves is inadequate to propel them into government without doing shabby little deals behind closed doors. Their shameful pact with the Conservatives will create untold hardship to millions of citizens and is damaging our economic recovery.
Do we really want to increase the prospects of Liberal Democrats having influence in future governments, when under our existing system they could and should be virtually wiped out? I think not. That's why I don’t want to see them being thrown the lifeline of electoral reform.
AV is bad news for democracy, bad news for progressive change and bad news for the millions of people who need the return of a Labour government at the earliest opportunity.
Sunday 9 January 2011
LOCALISM BILL NOT SO LOCAL
LOCALISM BILL NOT SO LOCAL
Now we have the detail of the Localism Bill, many will ask was it worth the wait?
Much of the Bill is based on the premise that it will serve the interests of local people and where it builds on Labour’s reforms of local government, we will support it. But the truth is, much of it will do little to decentralise power to communities or improve the vital services on which people rely. In fact, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to take numerous powers for himself.
There are also questions about whether the interests of the whole community will be served, rather than a vocal minority of the most powerful.
Plans to give greater freedom to councils and communities ring hollow when at the same time the coalition is making unprecedented cuts to local government budgets. The Localism Bill is supposed to enhance the role of democratic local government, but I worry that the funding cuts will actually diminish its role. Little wonder then that the Bill contains a clause repealing the duty to promote democracy.
Eric Pickles claims the Localism Bill will give people a greater say over the neighbourhoods in which they live. But my concern is it could end up giving more power to the most vocal at the expense of everyone else. Many people for various reasons, from lack of time to lack of experience don’t involve themselves in local decision making. We must therefore resist the Bill becoming a NIMBY's charter by default.
But given the actions and statements of Eric Pickles and his ministerial team, one could be forgiven for thinking that was actually their intention. Indeed, Mr Pickles was so desperate to abolish regional housing targets that he acted unlawfully in prematurely scrapping regional housing plans last July. He must know that in many areas, removing housing targets will effectively act as a veto on desperately needed new housing developments.
This isn’t Labour scaremongering – according to YouGov, support for new housing in people's immediate vicinity is falling, and with half the population antagonistic to new housing, many good schemes will be rejected. Yet the need for new homes is critical and the economic impact of a new house building programme is huge. But the Localism Bill means the prospects for the 4.5 million people on housing waiting lists and the millions living in overcrowded circumstances are bleak. The Government’s ‘New Homes Bonus’, ‘Community Infrastructure Levy’ and ‘Community Right to Build’ schemes will do little to redress the balance.
Behind the rhetoric, the reality is the Localism Bill could actually undermine the viability of local communities by giving a disproportionate influence to those with a vested interest in resisting change. The mechanisms to address the needs of the powerless and disenfranchised are being swept away and the proposed alternatives fall short in comparison. My fear is the ability to take a wider strategic view is being superseded by what could become a tyranny of the now!
Eric Pickles says he wants “...every community to share in the benefits of economic growth”, but he is dismantling many of the tools communities already have to do just that.
Now we have the detail of the Localism Bill, many will ask was it worth the wait?
Much of the Bill is based on the premise that it will serve the interests of local people and where it builds on Labour’s reforms of local government, we will support it. But the truth is, much of it will do little to decentralise power to communities or improve the vital services on which people rely. In fact, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to take numerous powers for himself.
There are also questions about whether the interests of the whole community will be served, rather than a vocal minority of the most powerful.
Plans to give greater freedom to councils and communities ring hollow when at the same time the coalition is making unprecedented cuts to local government budgets. The Localism Bill is supposed to enhance the role of democratic local government, but I worry that the funding cuts will actually diminish its role. Little wonder then that the Bill contains a clause repealing the duty to promote democracy.
Eric Pickles claims the Localism Bill will give people a greater say over the neighbourhoods in which they live. But my concern is it could end up giving more power to the most vocal at the expense of everyone else. Many people for various reasons, from lack of time to lack of experience don’t involve themselves in local decision making. We must therefore resist the Bill becoming a NIMBY's charter by default.
But given the actions and statements of Eric Pickles and his ministerial team, one could be forgiven for thinking that was actually their intention. Indeed, Mr Pickles was so desperate to abolish regional housing targets that he acted unlawfully in prematurely scrapping regional housing plans last July. He must know that in many areas, removing housing targets will effectively act as a veto on desperately needed new housing developments.
This isn’t Labour scaremongering – according to YouGov, support for new housing in people's immediate vicinity is falling, and with half the population antagonistic to new housing, many good schemes will be rejected. Yet the need for new homes is critical and the economic impact of a new house building programme is huge. But the Localism Bill means the prospects for the 4.5 million people on housing waiting lists and the millions living in overcrowded circumstances are bleak. The Government’s ‘New Homes Bonus’, ‘Community Infrastructure Levy’ and ‘Community Right to Build’ schemes will do little to redress the balance.
Behind the rhetoric, the reality is the Localism Bill could actually undermine the viability of local communities by giving a disproportionate influence to those with a vested interest in resisting change. The mechanisms to address the needs of the powerless and disenfranchised are being swept away and the proposed alternatives fall short in comparison. My fear is the ability to take a wider strategic view is being superseded by what could become a tyranny of the now!
Eric Pickles says he wants “...every community to share in the benefits of economic growth”, but he is dismantling many of the tools communities already have to do just that.
Monday 3 January 2011
DERBY’S WORKING FAMILIES FACE £438 CUT IN SUPPORT FOR CHILDCARE COSTS THIS YEAR
More than 2,210 Derby families are set to lose an average of £438 a year in support for childcare costs, according to an independent think tank the Resolution Foundation.
Some families could lose considerably more in comparison to previous Government plans.
The cuts stem from an announcement made by Chancellor George Osborne in the October Spending Review, but this is the first time that their full impact has been shown.
The changes relate to the childcare element of the Working Tax Credit, which is claimed by around 450,000 working households across the UK.
Under the current system, working parents can claim support for up to 80% of the costs of childcare, but from April that figure will fall to 70%.
A recent survey found that as many as one in three working parents is considering giving up their job because they feel unable to cope with childcare costs.
Even before these cuts are factored in, thousands of workers in Derby are seeing their earnings frozen or going down and will have to tighten their belts even further.
With other work-related costs, such as train fares, now also rising, these cuts couldn’t come at a worse time for families. Many families are still unaware of the changes, despite the fact that they come into effect in a few months time.
For working mums on low-to-middle incomes losses like these will be hard to bear. Many parents find support with childcare costs absolutely essential to staying in work, and the big worry is some will now find that work doesn’t pay.
This was already set to be a tough year for families because of the Government’s austerity measures, and these cuts will make matters even worse.
Some families could lose considerably more in comparison to previous Government plans.
The cuts stem from an announcement made by Chancellor George Osborne in the October Spending Review, but this is the first time that their full impact has been shown.
The changes relate to the childcare element of the Working Tax Credit, which is claimed by around 450,000 working households across the UK.
Under the current system, working parents can claim support for up to 80% of the costs of childcare, but from April that figure will fall to 70%.
A recent survey found that as many as one in three working parents is considering giving up their job because they feel unable to cope with childcare costs.
Even before these cuts are factored in, thousands of workers in Derby are seeing their earnings frozen or going down and will have to tighten their belts even further.
With other work-related costs, such as train fares, now also rising, these cuts couldn’t come at a worse time for families. Many families are still unaware of the changes, despite the fact that they come into effect in a few months time.
For working mums on low-to-middle incomes losses like these will be hard to bear. Many parents find support with childcare costs absolutely essential to staying in work, and the big worry is some will now find that work doesn’t pay.
This was already set to be a tough year for families because of the Government’s austerity measures, and these cuts will make matters even worse.
Saturday 1 January 2011
FACE IT IF YOU DARE. THIS IS THE END OF THE CHILDREN'S DECADE
Polly Toynbee wrote this brilliant critique on the impact of the ConDem Coalition's policy prospectus in the year ahead
"Watching the coalition torch the programmes Labour designed to make a better society for the young is heartbreaking.
"Not since the war has Britain woken to so desolate a new year. Ahead lies an iron plan for £81bn of social destruction amid a wasteland of unemployment. Economically we face a neoliberal experiment threatening an era of low growth, no lessons learned from the 30s.
"The only question is whether voters believe David Cameron's New Year’s message: "We're tackling the deficit because we have to – not out of some ideological zeal. This is a government led by people with a practical desire to sort out this country's problems, not by ideology. When we talk of building a bigger, stronger society, we mean it." Or will they believe Ed Miliband's view that the "irresponsible pace and scale" of the cuts is a "political choice by those in power, not necessity"?
"Cameron's brilliance lies in his easy, Blairish demotic warmth. He doesn't sound like a zealot. Blair-like, he may even believe cuts will magically create his "bigger, stronger society" just because he says so. Or perhaps he is a cynical manipulator and a state-shrinking Ayn Rand fanatic. But motive hardly matters as his "most family-friendly party" embarks on inflicting untold damage to millions. Apologies for what follows, it will be a long list but don't let your eyes glaze over: the coalition relies on few people knowing what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has revealed – children are to be hardest hit.
"Sure Start faces horrendous cuts: some will close, many becoming mere sign posts with a skimpy private nursery, lacking fully trained nursery teachers and professionals who can change life chances. Many Connexions services are closing, no longer picking up "neets" (not in education, employment or training) and other lost children. Don't blame Cameron: the new localism hands blame to councils. But with 27%cuts, what else can they do as home care for the old faces similar devastation? Watch how council cuts fall hardest on the most deprived and least on the affluent.
The assault on children starts before birth. Poor families lose the £190 health in pregnancy grant and another £500 for second or more children. Child tax credit for babies is abolished – another £545 a year cut for the under-ones. Low-earning families will pay 10% more for childcare – another £780 a year. The nest egg child trust fund ends, a £500 loss. Working tax credits are frozen for three years: inflation makes that a 9% cut. Freezing child benefit for three years loses another 9%. Disabled families lose £9bn in benefits. All benefits fall by 2% a year, on a stealthy new CPI inflation measure. Now add in housing and council tax benefit cuts, at the extreme end ejecting tens of thousands from their homes, while social housing raises a "market rent" for new tenants.
"Jobcentres will now hand out vouchers for charitable food parcels: they will be needed in new Victorian Britain. But "big society" charities will never fill the gap as a third will fold. In Newcastle alone charities employing 7,000 people will lose 78% of state funds. Scores more cuts include Warm Front, losing 68% for insulating poorer homes. Now add all these up and see how they hit time and again on the same third of children. Add in the exceptionally vicious £30 a week cut in education maintenance allowance for poorer teenagers. Add in the VAT rise the IFS says falls hardest on those with least. Add in shrunken public services used most by the same families.
"But the scene-stealing social disaster will be unemployment rising to 9%, catching the young, the under-skilled and the marginal. The 1980s showed how many never found their feet again. Growing up, their families will be castigated as the feckless workless, the ones Osborne says make the dole "a life-style choice". Many in work, especially the lower paid, will see their real pay fall.
"The government might clear the deficit. But it will create a social deficit of incalculable cost in welfare, crime, health and mental illness that will set off another bout of hand-wringing national despair as Britain drops down international social league tables. Some cuts hit the headlines: school sport and free books for babies were reprieved (watch out for weaseling when the brouhaha dies down). But many cuts will pass unnoticed except by their electorally silent victims.
"One thing stands out: as the coalition torches the programmes designed to make a better society for children, Labour's record looks quite bright. The last decade was a pro-natalist era – a rare western exception where the UK birth rate rose in all social classes, as the government offered increasingly generous maternity leave. A warm message to families eased the financial burden for new mothers. A kinder state welcomed new babies with universal free nurseries, subsidised child care, Sure Start, a baby trust fund and first books. Perfect it certainly wasn't: maternity and health visiting services were stretched beyond capacity. But it was the sketched out start of a vision that valued and nurtured the nation's children.
"Watching it being dismantled is heartbreaking and we shall never know what its effect might have been. The idea was based on the US HighScope Perry preschool experiment that proved its value for money seven fold in higher employment, lower crime, less welfare and more stable marriages compared with a control group of deprived children without the same head start. But it took 30 years to demonstrate its worth.
"Nick Clegg’s new year message boasts of his puny pupil premium and his raising of the tax threshold that yields a maximum £3.25 a week – a sum drowned by the cuts. Coalition crocodile tears over stagnant social mobility leave me dumbfounded. The big society trope has succeeded thus far: sometimes the big barefaced political lie works best. But surely it won't fool all of the people all of the time? Some will always ignore inconvenient truths, but by this time next year many more will see just how shockingly far we are travelling from Osborne's 'all in this together'."
"Watching the coalition torch the programmes Labour designed to make a better society for the young is heartbreaking.
"Not since the war has Britain woken to so desolate a new year. Ahead lies an iron plan for £81bn of social destruction amid a wasteland of unemployment. Economically we face a neoliberal experiment threatening an era of low growth, no lessons learned from the 30s.
"The only question is whether voters believe David Cameron's New Year’s message: "We're tackling the deficit because we have to – not out of some ideological zeal. This is a government led by people with a practical desire to sort out this country's problems, not by ideology. When we talk of building a bigger, stronger society, we mean it." Or will they believe Ed Miliband's view that the "irresponsible pace and scale" of the cuts is a "political choice by those in power, not necessity"?
"Cameron's brilliance lies in his easy, Blairish demotic warmth. He doesn't sound like a zealot. Blair-like, he may even believe cuts will magically create his "bigger, stronger society" just because he says so. Or perhaps he is a cynical manipulator and a state-shrinking Ayn Rand fanatic. But motive hardly matters as his "most family-friendly party" embarks on inflicting untold damage to millions. Apologies for what follows, it will be a long list but don't let your eyes glaze over: the coalition relies on few people knowing what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has revealed – children are to be hardest hit.
"Sure Start faces horrendous cuts: some will close, many becoming mere sign posts with a skimpy private nursery, lacking fully trained nursery teachers and professionals who can change life chances. Many Connexions services are closing, no longer picking up "neets" (not in education, employment or training) and other lost children. Don't blame Cameron: the new localism hands blame to councils. But with 27%cuts, what else can they do as home care for the old faces similar devastation? Watch how council cuts fall hardest on the most deprived and least on the affluent.
The assault on children starts before birth. Poor families lose the £190 health in pregnancy grant and another £500 for second or more children. Child tax credit for babies is abolished – another £545 a year cut for the under-ones. Low-earning families will pay 10% more for childcare – another £780 a year. The nest egg child trust fund ends, a £500 loss. Working tax credits are frozen for three years: inflation makes that a 9% cut. Freezing child benefit for three years loses another 9%. Disabled families lose £9bn in benefits. All benefits fall by 2% a year, on a stealthy new CPI inflation measure. Now add in housing and council tax benefit cuts, at the extreme end ejecting tens of thousands from their homes, while social housing raises a "market rent" for new tenants.
"Jobcentres will now hand out vouchers for charitable food parcels: they will be needed in new Victorian Britain. But "big society" charities will never fill the gap as a third will fold. In Newcastle alone charities employing 7,000 people will lose 78% of state funds. Scores more cuts include Warm Front, losing 68% for insulating poorer homes. Now add all these up and see how they hit time and again on the same third of children. Add in the exceptionally vicious £30 a week cut in education maintenance allowance for poorer teenagers. Add in the VAT rise the IFS says falls hardest on those with least. Add in shrunken public services used most by the same families.
"But the scene-stealing social disaster will be unemployment rising to 9%, catching the young, the under-skilled and the marginal. The 1980s showed how many never found their feet again. Growing up, their families will be castigated as the feckless workless, the ones Osborne says make the dole "a life-style choice". Many in work, especially the lower paid, will see their real pay fall.
"The government might clear the deficit. But it will create a social deficit of incalculable cost in welfare, crime, health and mental illness that will set off another bout of hand-wringing national despair as Britain drops down international social league tables. Some cuts hit the headlines: school sport and free books for babies were reprieved (watch out for weaseling when the brouhaha dies down). But many cuts will pass unnoticed except by their electorally silent victims.
"One thing stands out: as the coalition torches the programmes designed to make a better society for children, Labour's record looks quite bright. The last decade was a pro-natalist era – a rare western exception where the UK birth rate rose in all social classes, as the government offered increasingly generous maternity leave. A warm message to families eased the financial burden for new mothers. A kinder state welcomed new babies with universal free nurseries, subsidised child care, Sure Start, a baby trust fund and first books. Perfect it certainly wasn't: maternity and health visiting services were stretched beyond capacity. But it was the sketched out start of a vision that valued and nurtured the nation's children.
"Watching it being dismantled is heartbreaking and we shall never know what its effect might have been. The idea was based on the US HighScope Perry preschool experiment that proved its value for money seven fold in higher employment, lower crime, less welfare and more stable marriages compared with a control group of deprived children without the same head start. But it took 30 years to demonstrate its worth.
"Nick Clegg’s new year message boasts of his puny pupil premium and his raising of the tax threshold that yields a maximum £3.25 a week – a sum drowned by the cuts. Coalition crocodile tears over stagnant social mobility leave me dumbfounded. The big society trope has succeeded thus far: sometimes the big barefaced political lie works best. But surely it won't fool all of the people all of the time? Some will always ignore inconvenient truths, but by this time next year many more will see just how shockingly far we are travelling from Osborne's 'all in this together'."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
