Waste-funded Tory tax reliefs will deny Gordon Brown the disunity he seeks in our ranks

Yesterday's Sunday Telegraph reported that Oliver Letwin has been asked to draw up a list of public expenditure savings that can be used to fund Tory tax cuts. This is excellent news if those savings are to be appreciable and can pay for tax cuts of real significance. Although Mr Letwin should be able to bring forward some obvious ideas for saving money (taking up, for example, the TaxPayers' Alliance idea of scrapping the ineffective Regional Development Agencies) he should not be tempted to be too precise about savings. The people best-placed to make wise efficiency savings are those closest to the frontline. Rather than shadow ministers deciding that 'project x' or 'project y' should be cut the better approach is for the Tories to announce that certain budgets will be frozen in real terms and that local managers and professionals need to find economies.  After many years in which the the public sector has been awash with money that should not be impossible.  Most households in the nation is facing such choices and they would understand such an approach.

Labour's strategy for political recovery relies upon Tory disunity.  Brown cannot get close to an opinion poll lead without the kind of infighting that would make us unattractive to voters.  Slowly but surely the party is edging towards a position where that scenario will be denied Mr Brown.  The Tory leadership is maintaining its fiscally conservative position on fully funding tax cuts while at the same time realising that a more urgent strategy for stimulating the real economy and slimming down the bloated state is necessary.  That is a recipe for Tory strength and unity.

We can then get on to the front foot - slamming Labour for leaving Britain least well placed to weather the global recession.  Campaigning against the debts that Labour is building up for the next generation should be at the heart of Tory campaigning over the coming winter of discontent.   

Tim Montgomerie

Comments

[Malcolm Dunn]

Agree that campaigning against future generation debts is a priority,disagree that savings should not be spelled out precisely. People did not trust us in 2001 and 2005 and we need them to trust us now.
Remember local managers who find their budgets frozen will be likely to seek to undermine us and will receive help from Labour when doing so.
If we think a certain project is not a priority and should not be afforded then we should say so ,openly and honestly.

[Tim Montgomerie]

We've debated this before Malcolm but I think it's difficult for us to be precise about savings from the opposition benches. I think it's perfectly credible to argue that most government departments can make better use of their current budgets - budgets that have grown fast in recent years and largely detached from public sector reforms. Forcing them to live with a real terms freeze would be my way forward. That would include a recruitment freeze for all but essential positions.

[Henry Mayhew - Ukipper]

Good piece ed. This country desperately needs an effective opposition. Tax cuts must come and they must come from reductions in spending.

The most important topic is public sector pensions. Do the Tories even have a policy on this?

[Bexie]

Fund the tax reduction with the following

The wasteful beaurocracy

get rid of the RDA's
stop the government propoganda machine (think adverts, nhs adverts et al)
wind up the bbc, contra to popular myth, the government pumps quite a lot of tax payer money into it
axe the "research" conducted by the government by labour client voter run "charities"

The wasteful projects

Axe the ID card
Axe any IT project involving EDS, PA Consulting, Capita or Logica
conduct a drains up investigation into the safety culture that demands people spend a week on a course to put on a safety harness before going onto a building site, and means that whereas in the thirties an escalator could be installed overnight on the underground it takes 9 months.

The bloated civil service

From my personal involvement I know there are many committed and dedicated civil servants, on the other hand I also know there are some idle slackers who would be fired from any normal organisation. I would like to see a smaller, better paid and more professional civil service.

so

Get rid of tax credits and business rates. Replace it all by one income tax, funded at a level that will pay for it all but which starts on or near the "relative poverty" line (I hate that term with a passion) and rises at about 2 times the average. IIRC it would mean income tax at about 28% starting at 12k and rising to 45% at about 50k.

Business rates are nugatory anyway since commerce simply passes on tax to its consumers. All they do is distort the business market; c.f. pulling down empty property, manufaturing going abroad when rate holidays disappear in enterprise zones. Similar comment for business taxes. Set the rate at 10% and commerce would run here, Keep the rate at 30% and it is cheaper to pull down a factory and move production to France, not exactly the most commerce friendly of locations.

Get rid of National Insurance run by the state and replace it with a European Styled compulsary insurance/ endowment scheme.

The above would slash the civil service adminsitration costs.

Just some thoughts.

[Winston C]

A great analysis by Tim and one we should all heed.Over the weekend some of the posts on conhome threads have appeared totally disproportionate and panicked.One could almost have believed that were well behind in the polls and George Osborne was the devil incaranate!

It is now time to be consistent and resolute.The electorate must have fixed in their psyche the fact that we will mend the public finances.Waste and bureaucracy will be chased down relentlessly and higher standards demanded of our public services.What do Labour have to counter this-More of the same? raiding the electorate's wallets to fund their bloated state.A society were nobody takes responsibility and interference masquerades for action.

[The Bishop Swine]

"Over the weekend some of the posts on conhome threads have appeared totally disproportionate and panicked"

I'll put my hand up to being panicked at least by the state of our public accounts.

As for the disproportionate and the critical ones, I suspect that Labour supporters are behind a lot of it.

[Ken Stevens]

I certainly concur with the sentiments but you need to be careful how you present the proposals, giving indications of methods of achieving them.

For example, one commenter says 'recruitment freeze'. That's OK, because existing staff need not therefore fear the dole if they vote for you.

On the other hand, 'scrapping ineffective regional development agencies' risks denying you the number of votes equating to the total staffing of those agencies, on the basis of turkeys not voting for Christmas!

Thus, for sound electoral reasons, be gung-ho about objectives but sensitive about explaining means of attaining them.

It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it!

[Stop_Common_Purpose]

The Conservatives should start by withdrawing from the Evil Union. A lot of money would be saved that way.

[Tony Makara]

Axe the 3.4 Billion New Deal and the £350 pound a week providors that come with it. The providors are just another gravy-train the taxpayer can't afford, and with youth unemployment up by 20% since the New Deal was introduced they can hardly be considered value-for-money.

A simple system of job-matching would be far more successful in leading people towards the vacancies that they can realistically apply for.

[euro]

The Telegraph is outrageous this morning (along with almost the whole UK press) in it's reporting of the IMF comments regarding tax cuts.

http://cassiuswrites.blogspot.com/2008/11/telegraph-directly-misquotes-imf.html

[GB£.com - a RON (Replace Osborne Now) not a Roon]

Why not start framing the public sector wastage debate clearly by always referring to two figures seperately but together, the 'front line' and 'bureaucratic' spend and employee count? Never use a single total, always use two seperate totals.

For example:
"The government seeks to mislead the public by only giving us its total spend, but it is vital to seperate the bureaucratic and front-line expenditure to understand how billions of pounds are being wasted'. etc.

The more this is done, the more the public will be able to clearly disconnect the two and I am sure will be able to get angry themselves about the size of the bureaucratic wastage.

This will then allow the Tories to both trump Labour on front-line spend and enable them to win support for large cuts in the bureaucratic spend.

[Jennifer Wells]

U N I T Y T H R O U G H C U T T I N G W A S T E !

[Letters From A Tory]

I disagree Tim. I think the Conservatives should be very explicit with what is being cut. How do you think the public will react if the Conservatives just say it's not our problem, let the government departments sort it out.

The Conservatives have shown very little leadership recently and they must be seen to take charge of this situation, not pass the buck onto someone else.

[The Bishop Swine]

"The Conservatives should start by withdrawing from the Evil Union. A lot of money would be saved that way."

A lot of us agree with you, however this is a classic example of a subject that needs careful thought and clear policies.

FACT:

Withdrawing from the EU will be difficult even dangerous if it is not done very carefully. How are we going to make up for the lost Markets ? Turning back the clock is simply not possible, so we would need to set up a different system to opt into. I would like to see our future tied into that of the rest of the Famous Five nations, however do they want that?
Its not sensible to simply say we want out. We need to arrange a deliberate and controlled withdraw.

[Wearside Tory]

We need to be bold and to think big to capture the electorates imagination..

Some of the comments about GO have been OTT..
But he does have a case to answer - since the excellent work on inheritance tax - he has looked a bit of a one trick pony...

Let's have some tax cutting big hits...

[pp]

This is a good initiative - it could have been communicated better - osborne making good use of the resources available to him (in contrast to Browns 'me, me me' napoleon complex), rather than the take that the labourgraph took on it.

Tactically spending-savings (especially 'quick wins', 'low hanging fruit' etc) need to be identified, but in parallel a new vision is needed.

Tactically you can say RDAs should be cut because they don't seem to justify the cost, so it will save money.

But, strategically what functions were they created to serve? are those functions still valid/required or redundant? should those functions be ditched, or moved elsewhere? etc...

If it was clear what they were for, what they cost and what they were achieving their continued existanse (or otherwise) would be a complete no-brainer.

This applies to all government spending - the tax payer must be told what is going where and why -- and to tell the taxpayer, the treasury has to know!

[The Bishops wife]

"Some of the comments about GO have been OTT..
But he does have a case to answer - since the excellent work on inheritance tax - he has looked a bit of a one trick pony...

Let's have some tax cutting big hits..."

He had a very good weekend, so I have some hope. I suspect that in the fullness of time he will indeed be moved sideways. George is a nice chap and he has loads of charisma, he is important to DC and is a very intelligent player.G.O. will be with us for a long time I suspect. I just think he needs the right job.

[Stewart Geddes]

The point needs to be made again and again, that Labour have increased public expenditure massively without a massive improvement in outcome.

Those who ask what we would cut to fund tax cuts should be asked in return if they consider that all public expenditure has been or is carried out in the most cost effective way. All members of the public can identify at least one item where savings could be made.

There is no need to identify specifics at this time, just keep asking the question, has all the spending so far been efficient?

The public know, and expect us to act.

[James Maskell]

I suspect the Conservatives will be rather unambitious about this such is their reluctance to be ambitious about anything these days. They wont want to promise too many cuts in spending because itll lead to the normal tactic of public service cuts hitting home. Cameron will hold himself back.

[Anon]

Couple of quick points:

- great news that the Conservative leadership have woken up to tax cust funded through reductions in spending. Key point is to link the two together, by referring to the GDP-contribution of public spending as the principal yardstick by which we could decide whether to cut or increase specific areas of public expenditure (with a protective floor under public spending genuinely aimed at protecting the vulnerable)

- budget freezes won't bring us home Tim. We cannot delegate responsibility for cutting back spending to managers inside the public sector - this is actually the Government's currently adopted approach on the back of the Gershon Review, Therefore we need to establish a 'pain-gauage' to guide us where we can/ cannot aim

- if Letwin is serious about this project, he should approach each of the Shadow spending teams and aks them to consider a range of budgetary scenarios that we will probably encounter upon our transition to govt in 2010 - e.g. flat real/ flat cash/ cut in cash. Then approach each team and ask them to pencil out a hierarchy of public spending based on the 2 principles previously outlined (GDP-contribution/ protecting the vulnerable). This will at least give some credibility to the whole exercise, rather than laying ourselves open to the charge of whimsical cuts

You might think this asks a lot of our Shadow Cabinet teams. If it does, there's a simple solution to hand - give up those outside directorships and concentrate on the full-time job

[anon]

P.S. any talk of tax cuts funded through spending cuts relies on establishing a clear concept with the public - i.e. we need to distinguish between spending on public services and spending on the public sector. The gap between the two is the territory we cannot afford in the current economic climate

[David Belchamber]

Bexie at 09.20:

"Get rid of tax credits and business rates. Replace it all by one income tax, funded at a level that will pay for it all but which starts on or near the "relative poverty" line (I hate that term with a passion) and rises at about 2 times the average. IIRC it would mean income tax at about 28% starting at 12k and rising to 45% at about 50k".

I agree with that sort of simplification, though not necessarily those figures.

I think that we should be fairly specific in the areas for cutting waste otherwise we run the risk of the maniacal Balls running around accusing us of cutting top-line services.

We have a huge civil service; why does the government therefore have so many quangoes and consultants? How can ministries defend the present level of overmanning? I know that suggests redundancies, adding to the list of unemployed, but really every person employed by the state must show that they add value to the job.

Just as we are back to the usual Labour boom and bust (the third time since the war?), so too are we back employing people in non-jobs. Many years ago I suggested putting all these people in a Department of Inefficiency, so that the rest of government could actullay get something done. At the moment these people are spread around, slowing others down.

[Iain]

"Some of the comments about GO have been OTT.."

I don't think so. The Conservatives are asking the electorate to vote for them becase they are going to put no experience Osborne in charge of our finances, which wouldn't be such a terrible thing if Osborne could have shown some foresight and sense, but he hasn't done that either.

Now add into the mix a Gordon Brown fiscal stimulous package, which, as far as I could see would mean he would call a snap election before the bills for his give away were relised.

Just stand back, put aside loyalties for a minute and just look at the choice the Conservatives are giving the electorate over the most department of state.

Its not good!

[resident leftie]

It's a pretty sorry sight when Osborne has to go round to Letwin's house looking for spending cut ideas. Letwin has form at avoiding difficult decisions. He'll probably hide under the douvet until Osborne goes away.

[Matt Wright]

Folks, time to fight back and hard. The Labour spin machine has done just as much damage to the people of Britain as to other parties. We cannot allow Labour to con the public and further wreck our nation.

Another vital point. Economic responsibility, cutting waste and lowering the tax burden on struggling families and businesses actually goes hand in hand with our social responsibility agenda that we have built up. Two pillars of attack - the economy and society. Making the economy stronger for the long term and reducing the cost of social breakdown. These can be self reinforcing and an upward cycle.

[Phil C]

The key to real cuts is "things the Government can stop doing". So I'd get rid of DCMS for starters, there is no place for a Ministry of Culture in a free society. Mabe DC should ask each of the Shadow Cabinet for one area within each of their responsibilities where Government can just stop doing stuff.

[the bishop swine]

"You might think this asks a lot of our Shadow Cabinet teams. If it does, there's a simple solution to hand - give up those outside directorships and concentrate on the full-time job"

Yes I agree, being an MP should be a full time 100% commitment job. It should not be a springboard to the Boardroom. There are many candidates for each seat in the house.
So if an MP or Shadow minister wants to continue working outside of Parliament they should be asked (in no uncertain terms) to stand down in favor of a full timer. Of course this will be disliked and moaned about but the fact is Parliament is no longer a gentleman’s club. The fact is MP’s are well rewarded enough as it is. I also do not agree with the common claim that these people are well able to manage both roles, as they are such important and skilled people. A person who enters parliament should be utterly committed to their constituents and party.

[Tim Montgomerie]

It's wrong to suggest that it's inappropriate for Oliver Letwin to help find cuts. We are in the middle of hugely demanding economic times. Oliver was Shadow Chancellor and oversaw the James Review on efficiencies. It makes sense that the full Tory team is used at a time like this.

[Tony Makara]

I agree with the comments on ending tax-credits. The whole tax-credit system traps people into poverty as they are afraid to take a slightly better paid job because they always have an eye on how it will effect their state top-up. The tax-credits system is literally a half work/half benefits culture. I also believe that like the minimum wage, which should also be scrapped, it has the effect of pulling wages down.

[RichardJ]

"On the other hand, 'scrapping ineffective regional development agencies' risks denying you the number of votes equating to the total staffing of those agencies, on the basis of turkeys not voting for Christmas!"

How many of them are likely Tory voters?

The advantage of getting rid of non-jobs is that most of them are taken up by lefties.

[Ken Stevens]

David Belchamber
"I know that suggests redundancies, adding to the list of unemployed, but really every person employed by the state must show that they add value to the job."

Just the sort of OTT approach that will scare off votes. Bearing in mind the size of the public sector, how many lost votes might that amount to?

The individual clerk occupying a post is quite likely to be working very competently at his/her job. The minority who aren't should be dealt with, whether we are in a good or bad economic climate and under whatever politics of government.

The point is whether the post occupied in itself adds value to the administration of public affairs. That is a matter for the hierarchy that has created such a post, not the individual who might be devoting heart & soul to the job in hand.

[Simon Denis]

Tax cuts, yes. More borrowing, no. So far so good. I agree with all those who say that the Conservatives should cost this exercise precisely.

As to unity - of course; however, this should not be used as a blanket call to rule out discussion or indeed complaint.

Many of us were more than prepared to defend Osborne against that serpent, Mandelson. We started to turn against him when we found so feeble and so belated a response to what Labour was up to - both as a government and as a party. To most of the public, Tory proposals were about as well known as the deliberations of a masonic lodge. When they did emerge, they were almost as abstruse. Now it looks as though change is in the air. Good. Slash those taxes. Ditch those "grands projets". And restrain local councils from wasting our money on similarly otiose expenditure.

[Alan Douglas]

Would ANYONE, except those actually earning from them, resent a huge reduction in Quango personnel and Consultant numbers ?

It would not be hard to point out the total cost of these from say 1996 to the present, against what allowing for inflation rises would have been, and to make a firm commitment towards cutting these back.

There must be £ billions of savings virtually the whole country can agree with.

Similarly, the regions, all these non-functioning computer systems such as ID cards. There are plenty of areas where well-promoted Conservative "cuts" would chime with the electorate, despite Mandelspin. These are the ones we need to be shouting about.

Alan Douglas

[Ken Stevens]

RichardJ

Yours crossed with my response to DB.

I can accept that there are certain types of post that are particularly attractive to those of a particular political mindset but would suggest that these are in the minority.

For example, would an office worker in a regional development agency by definition be a rabid commie or might it be more of a case of having applied to whatever vacancy was on offer in their locality?

This macho testosterone-fuelled stuff is all very well but it will lose votes rather than gain them. Has anyone counted the cost of mass redundancies, as compared with a measured package of recruitment freezes, redeployment and natural wastage?

If you want to be in a position of putting all these things into effect, you need to be a bit more level-headed about the means of doing so.

[Anon for this post]

I do a fair amount of work for RDAs (hence anonymity). I was recently speaking to the Chief Exec of one and asked whether they had made contingencies in respect of change of government. Apparently they have been in contact with senior Tories and the steer has been that the RDAs will not be abolished and that the RDAs have been assured that the official line is that the TPA approach to RDAs is "nutty and embarrassing".

Having seen first hand quite how spot on the TPA analysis is (if anything it is too kind) this is disappointing.

[David Belchamber]

Ken Stevens at 11.08:

"Just the sort of OTT approach that will scare off votes. Bearing in mind the size of the public sector, how many lost votes might that amount to?"

I recognise the danger but we want smaller government and there is manifestly a lot of overmanning and totally unnecessary jobs in the public sector. Brown has added some 700,000, I believe; not all of these are teachers, doctors, nurses etc.

Yes, it will have to be done gradually, not suddenly, but it still needs to be done. Don't forget people in non-jobs still get taxpayer funded public sector pensions.

Having said that, I think that some of the savings suggested by others (scrap ID cards, regional assemblies etc) should come first but it is heartening that savings in government waste appear to be back on the conservatives' agenda.

[Anon for this post]

My experience is that the RDAs are not staffed by disproportionate numbers of rabid lefties - indeed if anything most are conscientious about not wasting public funds and that the biggest waste comes from projects which have got local political buy-in so that there is heavy pressure from Ministers not to kill them off.

In one of his first speeches as PM, Brown nearly gave the Chair of English Partnerships a heart-attack by overdoing his announcement on eco-towns so as to make every single one of them economically impossible (this was pre-house price slump and his statement made the full zero-carbon towns cost double their market value).

[resident leftie]

Posted by: RichardJ | November 17, 2008 at 11:03
"On the other hand, 'scrapping ineffective regional development agencies' risks denying you the number of votes equating to the total staffing of those agencies, on the basis of turkeys not voting for Christmas!"

How many of them are likely Tory voters?

The advantage of getting rid of non-jobs is that most of them are taken up by lefties.

Hiring or sacking civil servants based on their likely political affilation is repellent. It would be like illegally selling council houses to stuff boroughs with voters. I can't imagine even the Tories would do something like that.

You should have the courage of your convictions, decide what it's best for the State not to do, and suggest some real cuts. The private sector will take up the slack if the jobs are really necessary.

[Ken Stevens]

David Belchamber
"Yes, it will have to be done gradually, not suddenly, but it still needs to be done."

No contention on that at all. But you still have to attract the votes to gain the power to achieve this.

The essential point is not to 'frighten the horses' (= voters)in doing so.

Matt Wright refers to struggling families. One or two of those might happen to have breadwinners working in the public sector. Those potential voters might not see the attraction of voting for no-job!

[Felixstowe Fiddler]

The Cameron-Osborne relationship is a good example of why political leaders should not have friends as colleagues. Cameron can't or won't see that Osborne is a liability as shadow chancellor. What's needed is a good media and Commons performer who can zero in on the weakness of the Government's economic strategy. More than ever, with the world turning Brown into a hero - unaffected as it is by his scandalous raid on our pension funds and flogging off our gold reserves - and it is being hyped by Brown-nosing Fleet Street, the Tories must be fiscally robust with strong voices and a clear, concise message. The Tory front bench has been caught wanting.
Labour may very well be trying to destabilise the Conservatives by getting at Osborne, but Osborne does not help his own case. He looks a beaten man, having brought all the ills on himself by his ill-judged tittle-tattle about Mandy, who is being coming across as a man of reason who'll help our struggling small businesses.
Cameron should not be afraid of replacing Osborne. A change of portfolios every few years is a given in both government and opposition politics. A direct swap with Hague would at one stroke deliver strength to the Tory Treasury team and would cause problems for Brown and Darling because they would know they would be dealing with a terrier who cannot be easily shaken off.
Osborne to the FCO portfolio would allow him more time to concentrate on the main goal - an election winning strategy, taking on Labour and the Lib Dems in the marginals.
Too many contributors to ConservativeHome were beguiled by Osborne and believed - ever since Boris and Crewe & Nantwich - that victory was taken for granted. It isn't and the Conservative now are in danger of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

[David Parker]

It is probably true that the bulk of the new employees in the bureaucratic non jobs created by NuLab will vote Labour, as the party which believes in large governmernt and state intervention. But this does not necessarily apply to the more able and ambitious civil servants, who would genuinely wish to see improved public services but are continually frustrated by excessive bureaucracy, political correctness, and the idleness and inefficiency of their less able or industrious colleagues.

The aim should therefore be to raise, not lower, the standing of public service management, by increasing its transparency and accountability, rewarding success and penalising failures, whereby bonuses are only paid for savings or improved efficiency achieved and salaries are reviewed in the light of individual performances.

External consultancy, at both local and national levels, should be greatly reduced.
In many cases "consulting" is used merely as an excuse for delay, or to pass the buck, rather than make a decision upon contentious issues and to pretend that the final choice was made by popular demand.

Similarly Government advertising, which often amounts to no more than political propaganda, should be strictly controlled and the maximum annual expenditure upon this specified in every Budget.

One of the greatest wastages of public expenditure arises from the excessive, officious and bureaucratic application (often leading to heavy legal expenses) by local authorities of complex legal regulations, in circumstances which are clearly inappropriate, resulting in public contempt both for the local authority and the law.

[pp]

Unelected public sector workers, and non-tax-payers should not get a say over the spending of tax payers money, it is a clear conflict of interest...

It is the people in the most pointless jobs who have the biggest incentive to support the person who gives them our money - if these people had any pride/dignity they would not take such jobs. They would get wealth creating work in the private sector.

Browns wrote a booklet at university 'how to sponge off the state' (for state read 'taxpayer') he continues to sponge off the taxpayer and will to the end of his days, furthermore he continues to encourage everyone else to do so.

For turkeys to vote for christmas they would have to be pretty sure that they were likely to be going to heaven...

[Cleethorpes Rock]

If left to come up with efficiencies themselves, there is little chance of departments making cutbacks.

I think the question of public sector pensions needs to be looked at urgently. This is storing up billions of unfunded liabilities for the future. We need to stop final salary pensions for new entrants to every service but the Forces.

We could also make billions of pounds of savings by cutting the advertising budget. I can't turn on a TV or radio now without hearing a taxpayer-funded advert telling me don't do this, don't do that, beware of the other.

On ID cards, we should also ask pressing questions about the compensation clauses in the contracts. Labour have deliberately inserted clauses which will see billions handed to French companies when the project is cancelled.

Channel 4 and the BBC can lose some money too.

Foreign travel by local authorities should have to be signed off by the SoS. Hackney should not be using school budgets to send headmasters to Arizona and that should stop under a Tory government.

The largest slice of the tax pie goes to Social Security. Without reforms to tackle societal breakdown, we'll be saddled with higher costs and the higher taxes that come with them for years to come.

A good start from us, but I hope it's only the start.

[Ken Stevens]

pp

"Unelected public sector workers..should not get a say over the spending of tax payers money.."
They are also taxpayers --- and voters.
And it is their political masters who set up the schemes within which such money is spent. Now, how to gain sufficient votes to change those political masters........mmmm.

"It is the people in the most pointless jobs who have the biggest incentive to support the person who gives them our money"
Ergo they won't be voting for you. Nor those in the least pointless jobs, who could nevertheless be rendered fearful by all the drum-banging.

As to the mention of consultants, and I would add in contractors, it would seem that a large wodge of capitalists also have a stake in maintaining status quo.
This makes it even more necessary to take care in how you Tories express your intentions on the subject, sufficient to attract the votes of self-interested righties as well as lefties!

[Ken Adams]

Scrapping the RDAs would in my opinion be a boon to the country and democracy, but what then would be the mechanism for receiving and distributing EU regional funding. I do understand that it is our money in the first place and it would be much better if the EU system were not conduit at all, but that it was initially retained by our own government.

[pp]

Public sector workers don't pay 'real' tax -as they don't create wealth - it is just a governmental paperwork exercise.

I agree with your comments - that was the intention of my 'turkey' comment - people in 'make-work' jobs need to be confident that they can move to 'make-wealth' jobs - if they are to vote for 'christmas'.

As a freelance consultant I have done some work for a quango (damn good money it was too) - I could only justify it to myself on the basis that it was all that was available at the time, and it was my money that they were paying me back anyway - however getting taxpayer money still felt like being on benefits.

Mind you it was one of the few public sector IT projects that was actually a great success right the way through the OGC process - it saved the DWP a lot of money so they were free to waste it elsewhere.

[ChrisD]

Those who ask what we would cut to fund tax cuts should be asked in return if they consider that all public expenditure has been or is carried out in the most cost effective way. All members of the public can identify at least one item where savings could be made."

I think that is a very good point.

I think that Osborne will offer a fiscal and political strategy which will go hand in hand.

The Tory leadership over the last couple of weeks has got across its message that borrowing is too high, "the credit card is maxed out".
They are telling the electorate that we cannot keep borrowing right now, and they managed to get across the message about the dramatic drop in Sterling as Foreign investment flees the UK. They were up against it this weekend because the *political lobby* thought it all so utterly extraordinary that the *Shadow Chancellor* of all people should dare to mention that Sterling had dropped off a cliff since June.

What that did, was not just embarrass the government, but also the political media!
They had built up Brown as some sort of economic global guru with a raised stock globally, but they failed to report that the most important indicator of Brown's economic incompetence was showing the exact opposite of what they were reporting.

I notice that Andrew Neil on Boulton's programme, managed to make the same point that Ted did over the weekend on PB.com, and Boulton didn't like it. I thought his rather pompous comment revealing. The political lobby being too cocooned with Brown and his team in recent weeks. They bought the line about there being a convention about not mentioning Sterling without actually checking whether this was the case.
A shadow Chancellor not being able to question the government on its economic competence with hard facts, or not being able to put forward one of the main indicators showing that their position on no more borrowing is valid. Now Mr Boulton, that is extraordinary!

Even worse, as Brown strutted the world stage promising big tax cuts and increased spending, the same political lobby failed to *notice* or report the very real rows and differences going on between No10 & No11, or that Darling was running around behind Brown trying to hose down expectations because he like Osborne is concerned about Sterling.

The real purpose of this weekend summit for Brown, was to try and get more leverage at home in the Treasury to go ahead with his cynical politically motivated plans for the PBR.

Osborne needs to find very clear and targeted cuts in public spending, not only are they necessary right now, but it would be fiscally prudent. And, they have got to be able to negate the Brown accusation of the Tories just wanting to get rid of doctors, teachers and nurses etc.

And you do that by highlighting the sheer wastage and incompetence of this government when spending our money. You have to show the voters that not only did Brown spend money we didn't have, he wasted it!
That again would feed into the political message that Osborne is putting forward about the Tories being fiscally responsible while Brown wishes to borrow even more, and that he will mortgage not just our future, but our kids as well.

[RichardJ]

"They are also taxpayers --- and voters."

Where does their money come from? Other taxpayers. So their payment of tax is essentially a wage deduction from their employer.

That said not allowing public sector workers the vote would mean denying the armed forces and police a vote. Can't see that going down well in the Conservative Party, let alone the country.

[RichardJ]

"They are also taxpayers --- and voters."

Where does their money come from? Other taxpayers. So their payment of tax is essentially a wage deduction from their employer.

That said not allowing public sector workers the vote would mean denying the armed forces and police a vote. Can't see that going down well in the Conservative Party, let alone the country.

[RichardJ]

"Hiring or sacking civil servants based on their likely political affilation is repellent. It would be like illegally selling council houses to stuff boroughs with voters. I can't imagine even the Tories would do something like that."

If you read my comments you would see I wasn't advocating job cuts based on political affiliation. I was pointing about that public sector non-jobs (smoking cessation officers etc) are probably more likely to be taken by left-wingers. Therefore abolishing them wouldn't lose the Tories votes. If they were mostly Tories I would still favour their abolition.

[Opinicus]

The problem with this approach is that
a) it has been tried and failed before
b) therefore the public don't believe it
c) we rely on people doing it who are not committed to it and not Conservatives and will do anything to embarrass us
d) we look only to be interested in money not in services

Like the Bourbons, Leftwing has forgotten nothing and have remembered nothing

What is needed is to make a political judgment on services and then abolish those nationwide or at least over England so no postcode lottery. Secondly give an absolute promise that not a single doctor teacher or nurse will lose their job to neutralise that canard. Thirdly promise extra help to squaddies so that there is some positive news (and as they vote Tory).

As I have said before on this site the obvious fat is in the Quangos. In the midst of a deep depression what good is a White Fish Authority - they've been rubbish at keeping up fish stocks anyway.
Draw up a list of 100 quangos and abolish them or suspend their functions for 5 years until we're through the crisis. Then we'll see how many we miss. Suspending them should get round any EU commitments too.

This needs courage and I know that's in short supply at CCHQ but it is much more politically acceptable and easy to sell and believable and the people being regulated by the Quangos will bless our name.

[pp]

That said not allowing public sector workers the vote would mean denying the armed forces and police a vote.

Not wishing to sound like blair, mandleson or brown - but I was a bit more careful than that - I didn't say they shouldn't get a vote, I said they shouldn't get a say in how taxpayers money is spent :-)

ps. And no I don't have a fully worked through plan of how that would work :-))

[ChrisD]

Oh by the way, the title of this thread really says it all.
Waste-funded Tory tax reliefs will deny Gordon Brown the disunity he seeks in our ranks

No wonder ConHom didn't want to highlight Andrew Rawnsley's article in the Observer. A little too close to the truth.
I still never cease to be amazed by this site, and others in the Tory party who would put a possible Conservative government behind their own individual objectives.
It is the single most important reason why the Tories languished for so long in the polls and never managed to raise above 200 seats in the HoC's in 11 years.

Successive leaders were too often distracted by this group's deliberate attacks aimed at achieving tax cuts, no matter the political cost to the party.
And the irony, well, just look at the economy right now and in its future.
According to some tax cuts are the answer in the good times, and the bad.
Bit like Brown's mantra on borrowing. Its fiscally prudent to borrow to invest for the future, and its good to borrow in the bad times.

Words really fail me!

[Louise]

@pp - then you should have a glorious career with the current Conservative Party.

I am taking care not to make this ad hominem but I suggest you go and live in Zimbabwe if you want to deny people the right to have their say on "how taxpayers' money is spent". They are taxpayers - they receive income, and it is taxed. Ergo they are taxpayers. And citizens. And voters.

Your solution means depriving them of the vote, full stop (how else would you stop them having a say?). I used to think my ex-boyfriend, a staunch Labour activist (and that is why he is an ex) was crass and stupid for saying the Tories would take the vote away from women. Now I think I know what he means, and I feel dirty instantly for sympathising with him.

I don't want a Labour government, but I am not about to deprive its supporters of their fundamental civil rights. If they vote Labour they obviously see something worth it instead of in the Conservative Party. It's the Party's interest to make sure it can pull them away from voting Labour. As I said last night, my Dad by rights should vote Tory - senior management, firm about to go bust because of the slump in house prices...

...and guess what? he is voting Labour because the Tories don't offer him any solutions. I will stick with the party. But I respect his choice and want to win him round, I'm not going round saying he doesn't deserve the vote because of it. I know some Labour activists who do the same -so please don't stoop to their level.

We need to sort this out, but not by depriving people of civil rights - it can be done by better means than that.

[Louise]

@Chris - I gave up a good job in 2005 to campaign 24/7 for the party after joining in 2004. Where were you then?

[ChrisD]

"@Chris - I gave up a good job in 2005 to campaign 24/7 for the party after joining in 2004.
Really? Well, I must say that is a fascinating fact to digest when I think of the content of many of your posts on here.

Where were you then?"

Oh, let me see, I was a member of the party and out on the streets delivering leaflets for the party as I had in the previous years!

And to be honest, I have long suspected that you are a very crafty troll on this site.

[resident leftie]

Posted by: RichardJ | November 17, 2008 at 14:50

If you read my comments you would see I wasn't advocating job cuts based on political affiliation. I was pointing about that public sector non-jobs (smoking cessation officers etc) are probably more likely to be taken by left-wingers. Therefore abolishing them wouldn't lose the Tories votes. If they were mostly Tories I would still favour their abolition.

Your suggestion was that you needn't worry about the political consequences of getting rid of their jobs, because they are not Tory voters, implying that if they were, you would be concerned about it. Thank you for clarifying this.

pp said:

Public sector workers don't pay 'real' tax -as they don't create wealth - it is just a governmental paperwork exercise.

This is just typical right-wing ideology. A strong public sector contributes to welath creation. Even in capitalist terms you are wrong. How does our workforce get educated? Who patches people up and sends them back to work when they are ill? How do our workers get to work? Who ensures they don't die of food poisoning or pollution? Who stops them committing crimes? Who deters people from invading? I could go on.

[ChrisD]

If anyone missed Andrew Rawnsley's article in the Observer, I suggest you read it in full.
Osborne is waiting for Brown to tumble from his tightrope

" The unreconciled right are clamorous for the Tories to pledge sweeping public spending and tax cuts. He is not yet 40, a source of bilious resentment among jealous older Conservative MPs.

Too jejune, they sniff. Not enough bottom, they rumble. Fighting the last war, they complain. Feed us some bloody big tax cuts, they snarl. There is also aggravation that the Tory party appears to be the Dave and George Show, with only walk-on parts for others. The Daily Telegraph, which is no longer really the house paper of the Conservative party but is still read by a lot of Tory MPs, has become the loudest megaphone for those calling for him to be replaced.

That would, I think, be madness. For David Cameron to fire his Shadow Chancellor would be to humiliate his closest collaborator in the modernisation of the Tory party and to present a tasty scalp to Peter Mandelson."

"The Prime Minister has to take a double-or-quits gamble. The Tories do not. George Osborne's critics are only thinking eight days ahead. He is trying to see 18 months ahead. That makes the Shadow Chancellor smarter than those Tories who want to toss him overboard."

--------------------------------------

And Mike Smithson on PB.com this afternoon.
Is Osborne’s scalp a proxy to get at Cameron?
"With George Osborne continuing to make the news there’s a good analysis of his position from Michael White of the Guardian in which he suggests that the Shadow Chancellor’s biggest problems are on his own side - not the attacks from Labour.

White writes: “..Much more important to my mind than Labour attacks is that the people pushing hardest to get Osborne out are on his own side. And most of them are just the kind of Tories whose advice has helped keep their party in opposition for 11 years and counting…They’re at the ConservativeHome website, in the No Turning Back group, at the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph. Just try a spoonful of Simon Heffer, but be careful to spit it out quickly”.

I think that this is spot on. Beneath the surface in the Tory party there is a significant group who have never come to terms with the Cameron revolution. Although they wouldn’t admit publicly many would prefer to see the poll ratings collapse because it would give them a foothold into getting rid of the leader who they believe is taking the party in the wrong direction.

They still remember the “glory days” under Maggie and a Tory party that does not have those values is one they find hard to support.

Publicly they always back the leader but they feel less constrained about about putting the boot into Osborne.

It used to be quite a joke watching the ConservativeHome threads (the site we used to dub ContinuityIDS) whenever there was a good poll for the Tories. They hated it and I recall Tim Montgomerie once smashing into good figures in an ICM survey because “it was carried out on the phone”.

I think Osborne will survive and will cause problems for Labour at the general election."

And the title of this thread?
"Waste-funded Tory tax reliefs will deny Gordon Brown the disunity he seeks in our ranks"

Also remember who tried to destabilise Cameron last year over grammar schools, and its thanks to Gordon Brown's lack of courage rather than some in our own party that we didn't pay dearly with an Autumn GE.

And do they learn, no! We are looking a GE *any time* between now and 2010. The Telegraph are really gunning for Osborne and the Conservative party because they are not delivering what they want?
Who the hell do they think they are!

Is a campaign to get Cameron and Osborne to deviate from their long term strategy to win a GE and give into the demands from the very group that has proved so toxic to the party for so long, worth the risk of another 5 years of Brown and his crew.....

[Michael McGowan]

ChrisD, the problem for Cameron cheerleaders like you is that (a) you cannot see how cynical and abysmal the leadership's performance over the economy has been (the ever-so-smug Osborne is out of his depth); and (b) many many people don't believe that the Tories would do a significantly better job than Labour. That may (?) be harsh but the Modernisers have gone out of their way to minimise the differences between themselves any the Labour Party. Their own spin has come back to bite them.

[Sandy Jamieson]

There must be only a few Conservatives who do believe that the present proportion of people who work for the State and its Agencies is too low.

The danger is that although the Conservatives may win the next election, they will do nothing about the nearly half million brought on to the State pay-roll often doing non-jobs by Gordon Brown. In effect the next Conservative Government will just be the static point on the ratchet of an ever growing state.Just as Edward Heath did between 1970 and 1974

Let us take Local Government. The last half year has seen a drop of some £1,000,000 on Glasgow Corporation's income from Planning Fees. Have they reduced the number of Planners? Have they reduced the number of Buiding Control Officers? NO! Actually what those officers are doing is reading the fine print on every Government circular, reading every example of case law and going throrugh every Planning Application with a Fine Tooth Comb. What they're doing is justifying their existence. In the current climate, one cannot see any reason why any Local Council should be replacing anyone who resigns or retires from any position in any Planning or Building Control Department.

The big challenge is the unfunded inflation-proof pensions of almost every state employee. What is being created is a Class Divided society. Those who work for the state and those who fund them.

In their web-site the TPA each day identifies somewhere a waste of money or someone being given a non-job.

As such Central and Local Government usually employ people to monitor and emforce the Regulations passed by Parliament and Brussels. Every such act of legialation must be challenged and if found un-neccessary repealed. Yes I know interest groups such as the various Health and Safety Nazis and interest groups will oppose. Tough.

Increased Legislation means increased costs means increased bureaucrats.

[Richard Carey]

And do they learn, no! We are looking a GE *any time* between now and 2010. The Telegraph are really gunning for Osborne and the Conservative party because they are not delivering what they want?
Who the hell do they think they are!

ChrisD, I normally agree with you on most things, and can well understand your frustration on this, but the DT is an independent journalistic outfit and can take whatever editorial line it chooses. Complaining about editorial lines from the media is a little like fishermen complaining about the weather.

There have been points over the last couple of years, though, where I think that differences with some of the DT columnists have only served to highlight the positive ways in which our Party has changed.

I don't deny, though, that there are a few areas where an "and theory" coalition might still be built with some of the (more moderate) others, and we shouldn't be too quick to close that off...

[pp]

leftie
How does our workforce get educated?
Private sector workers generate the wealth to pay for it.

Who patches peple up and sends them back to work when they are ill?
Private sector worker generate the wealth to pay for it.

How do our workers get to work?
Private sector worker generate the wealth to pay for it.

Who ensures they don't die of food poisoning or pollution?
Private sector worker generate the wealth to pay for it.

Who stops them committing crimes?
Private sector worker generate the wealth to pay for it.

Who deters people from invading?
Private sector worker generate the wealth to pay for it.

I could go on.
And so could I.

It is an affront that I am forced to pay the state for provision of services that I may prefer to get elsewhere.

I don't think it was the magna-carta, but a similar document said that no knight should be obliged to pay for a service that they can perform for themselves. I think it is a good principal.

People who can't afford services may need assistance to pay for them, but even they shouldn't be forced use the state to provide them.

Welfare provision (money) and service provision are different things, and should be discussed separately.

i.e. Give parents the money, and let them chose whether to use the local comprehensive (or not) - if noone uses them, then the state need not provide them...

Have you seen the governments own figures on the massive 'social immobility' caused by the switch from grammer to comprehensive education? Their own report (page 37 I think) shows that their supposed 'progress' in social mobility still leaves it short of that available to children pre-comprehensive... Nice one labour... they must be proud...

[pp]

ps. oops italics messed up - but I think you'll get the message.

[resident leftie]

The point is that the private sector can't function with a public sector and vice-versa. They serve each other. Some services are better provided privately, some publicly. It's the narrow ideology of the right that everything that can be provided privately is better provided privately, and of the far left, the converse. Both are wrong.

[ChrisD]

Richard Carey, I take your point.
But, I have to be honest, my view of Iain Martin is forever coloured by the fact that he used the Three Line Whip to pompously apologise on behalf of Scotland for a particular episode of QT from that part of the UK.

[pp]

The public sector is an overhead we bear in our 'persuit of happiness'.

The burden of that overhead falls entirely on the private sector - that is the only place that wealth is created.

'Public servants' aren't doing the public any favours (no more than waiters, shop assistants and other private sector 'servants' are) - public servants are paid for their work (and often get substantially better packages that the private sector workers who maintain them) - the money (tax) is not give volantarily it is taken under threat of severe penalty.

Just because someone is affronted by obligation, doesn't mean they would (or wouldn't) choose to subscribe if given the choice.

And if obligation is a necessay, then it is a necessary evil that should be acknowledged as such.

Gordon Browns leaflet 'how to sponge off the state' followed the line that people are 'entitled to benefits as a right' -- I think people on benefits should consider themselves very lucky to be surrounded by people who spend a portion of their time working to pay for them. Similarly public servants should consider themselves lucky that people in the private sector are aparantly prepared to maintain them.

[Peregrine]

pp
I normally agree with you, so much so I was wondering whether you were my doppelganger. However, on this topic your dislike (it does come across as that) of public servants is rather objectionable.

There is no reason why public servants should consider themselves any luckier than those people who have jobs outside the state sector. The only people who are lucky are those that have found a job that they both love and gives them a decent living.

There is no reason why a first division/championship football player should be thought more of than a hospital consultant who only does NHS work (I should image they are on similar salaries), but equally there is no reason to think less of him.

It is a failing of the left that they see jobs that just create wealth as parasitic, let’s not make the reverse a fault of the right.