« Could we get a referendum after all? | Main | Conservatives visit Auschwitz and Birkenau »

Comments

Is it possible to achieve this restraint without cutting into essential services while simultaneously maintaining our commitments to public sector pensions and defence?

That's a fairy step in the right direction. Given that as much as 15% or 20% of government spending is waste, pure and simple (quangocracies and pointless initiatives etc), I think an annual reduction of 1.5% is more like it, but hey...

Congratulations ConservativeHome. Congratulations Michael Forsyth. Congratulations Michael Fallon. I think you are going to win this one in the end.

We have the small matter of winning an election first. Brown is going to get a very hard time from public servants keeping spending increases at 2.1% (half what they've been) reducing it still further will, to put it mildly, be politically difficult.
Mark Wadsworth, what percentage of the electorate do you really think will believe that we can make huge savings through eliminating waste? 5%? less? Politicians have a huge credibility problem. What we need to do is get elected and then 'show' the electorate that we can manage the public sector far better than Labour.

"..15% or 20% of government spending is waste, pure and simple (quangocracies and pointless initiatives etc)"

Good to see you back, Mark, in good fighting form.

I agree with you: let us spell out to the electorate just a few of the savings we could make in government to demonstrate how we have been overpaying in taxes under Brown:

"more produce for our pound!"

Eh? the basic rate of income tax is already 20p isn't it?

Does Lord Forsyth want the party to lose the election. Talk of tax cuts or spending reductions will do just that. Lord Forsyth and others seem to have learnt nothing from the last three general election defeats.

Rather than talking about reducing spending, we should describe it as "rebalancing". If/when our opponents accuse us of proposing cuts, we should reply by saying something along the lines of But do we really need armies of 'real nappy outreach workers' or hundreds of 'smoking cessation coordinators'? Do we really need all your local council/NHS Trust's posters and leaflets to be translated into 75 different languages?.

With time, we can bring taxpayers [and voters] round to the idea that there is indeed a vast bureaucratic deadweight that needs to be trimmed.

Here we go again, Same old refrain. it's just a cop out. No one quoted Osbourne re death duties this time but the point there is that Osbourne specified a tax; if he had prattled on about 1.5% government spending Balls would have had a field day. If you want to cut taxes specify the tax, give reasons and then talk of specific cuts in spending or other increases in tax. However, since no "tax cutter" ever bothers to get specific might I suggest a general approach, i.e. John Redwood's point about increases in spending and decreases in tax during the 18 years which demonstrates the point. I suspect no "tax cutter" would make the point though, they don't seem interested in persuading voters, just sounding off to fellow Conservatives who are too polite to call them what they are.

Good post David Sergeant

The English is so poor in David Sergeant's comment I have no idea what he is saying.

" they tie the Party into spending promises that could mean higher taxes or higher borrowing in a downturn. "


We need to cut spending in case we have HIGHER BORROWING IN A DOWNTURN?

Lord Forsyth is an economic illiterate.

Totally agree with your comments David Sargeant. Why do some in the party still insist on putting forward figures which leave the Labour spin machine to fill in the blanks.

"What we need to do is get elected and then 'show' the electorate that we can manage the public sector far better than Labour."
Also agree with Malcolm's point about our credibility when it comes to funding our public services adequately.
Trust in our politicians and their promises is at an all time low, can we just take one step at a time and prove ourselves competent to manage the whole government machine in such a way that makes it more efficient and cost effective before we start throwing around promises that we might not be in a position to keep.

Mike Ainsley@2235

Why do you say that Lord Forsyth is an economic illiterate?

The point that you seem to find difficult to grasp in your post is that in an economic downturn, tax receipts (ie Govt income) fall. So if you do not reduce spending, then either taxes or borrowing must go up to cover your spending commitments.

There is nothing economically illiterate about pointing that out.

Mark Fulford asks:

"Is it possible to achieve this restraint without cutting into essential services while simultaneously maintaining our commitments to public sector pensions and defence?"

We could make a start by avoiding further unfunded commitments to pay for public sector pensions. My suggestion is that actuaries should be appointed to work out what the effective employer (i.e. taxpayer) contribution is to these pensions, were they run on a private sector money purchase (i.e. funded) basis. The private sector typical employer contribution is 6% of salary, so if the effective public sector employer contribution is 16%, then this extra 10% of salary could be taken into account when setting wage levels (bearing in mind that public sector pay is already, on average higher than public sector pay).

I'd also question how much is needed for "essential public services". Australia seems to supply generally similar "essential public services" whilst taking around 35% of national income, whereas here we take around 45%. We spend billions on quangos and much of their spending is hardly on essentials. To pick a couple of examples out of the air, what about the Arts Council and British Council? Nobody NEEDS what they do. They are not essential services. Close these and we'd save a billion just like that. Give me an hour or two and I could find £10bn of non-essential services that could be cut. Goodness knows what could be done if the government put its mind to it.

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker