The candidates for cuts
Peter Hoskin 4:20pmOver at the Beeb website, Mark Easton flags up a new Ipsos MORI poll on public spending; you can view the whole thing here. There are plenty of eye-catching results in there. For instance, most people strongly agree that many public services are a waste of money and can be cut, while 40 percent of the public think that the Conservatives would be most effective party at getting good vaule for money from public services (compared to 25 percent for Labour). In particular, I think these two charts deserve attention:
Going off what the Tories are currently saying, they'd ring-fence both overseas aid and health spending. The charts above suggest that public opinion is against them in the case of overseas aid and for them in the case of health; which will certainly place some pressure on them to change their policy for the former. I suspect, though, that the scale of Brown's debt crisis will mean a Tory government also has to cut spending on health - so they may eventually want to start molding public opinion by pointing out the endemic waste in that particular service. Problem is, that doesn't quite chime with Lansley's emphasis on more and more spending.
Previous
RobertD
July 3rd, 2009 5:36pm Report this commentWhat the Tories need to emphasis is that health spending will have to continue to rise ONLY because of increasing demand for services BUT the only way to deliver these services within the current spending projections is by a rigorous cost cutting programme across the NHS, including freezing of salaries and pensions until the required efficiency saving have been implemented. Lansley is getting it right, and needs stronger support from the rest of the shadow cabinet in letting both providers and patients know what the score is.
Sir Graphus
July 3rd, 2009 6:00pm Report this commentIt's wrong to divide spending vertically, into departments.
How about dividing spending up horizontally:
Minsters
Senior management
Junketts
Spin Doctors
Middle management
Box tickers
Liaison officers
Front line services
C Powell
July 3rd, 2009 6:29pm Report this commentI simply do not understand the Tories' rationale for protecting spending on overseas aid. Nor has any Tory tried to explain it.
Frankly, nothing should be sacrosanct: until we know what the books really show we don't know the scale of the problem.
TGF UKIP
July 3rd, 2009 6:31pm Report this commentThe Clique's decision to ring fence "International Development" has plainly sweet FA to do with the intrisic meits of the case and everything to do with either the Mekon's crazed strategy to demonstrate that "the Nasty Party has truly changed" or that the Mekon is also an ID nut as well as a green headbanger.
"International Development" afforded greater priority over the over-stretched, under-rescourced Armed Forces, now there's something for which the Dave Ravers on this site can be really proud.
So come on Tiberius show us how your sophistry can spin this one for your Adored One.
Battle 2807
July 3rd, 2009 9:08pm Report this commentHow about cutting the 40 million pounds a day that we give to the EU?
If all the countries in the EU were to say 'we are in dire economic straights and cannot afford to pay' the EU MIGHT just make some effort to cut waste.
(Having said that, I do know that only UK, Germany and the Netherlands are the only net contributors to the EU budget. But if we just stopped paying, maybe something good would come of it).
Battle 2807
July 3rd, 2009 9:11pm Report this commentFurther to my last post, in my opinion 40 million pounds a day would be a price worth paying IF the EU were to butt out of so many parts of our life. IF they were to just leave us alone, it would be worth the price. Instead of which, they interfere with our farming, our fishing, our law making. And make everything so much worse.
So lets just stop paying them.
Rob
July 4th, 2009 8:15am Report this commentComparing health and international development, though, is a false comparison. You'd need to cut the international development budget in its entirety to make the same impact as a small reduction in health or education spending.
Ian C
July 4th, 2009 11:56am Report this commentThe reason for protecting Overseas Aid is previous commitments. And the Dep't's budget is small anyway relative to the rest, so savings here = peanuts. There is also an international credibility price to pay from reneging on commitments.
The real story in cuts in spending is to review the whole role and place of Gov't. It has a shocking long-term record (i.e. not just under this gov't)of delivering any service at anything close to a value for money price.
The debate needs to be set at that level so that the detailed cuts have a wisdom and logic that has been well-aired and set against this now critical much bigger picture.
Harpic
July 4th, 2009 1:16pm Report this commentIt depends what part of Internal Development Aid is protected. Those parts that assit in buying goods/services from the UK are protected as the money returns to the UK and provides jobs in the UK. The rest can be reduced.
Verity
July 4th, 2009 3:23pm Report this commentIain C: "There is also an international credibility price to pay from reneging on commitments."
No government can bind its successor, so that dog won't hunt.
Re Dave, I look forward every day to see what his latest far lefty, Student Union, moonbat ideas are. Does he genuinely think these ideas will appeal to Conservative voters? Or does he think they will appeal to embedded Labour voters and that traditional Tory voters will tolerate them just have the pleasure of having him in No 10?
The days of international aid are over. Dead. Moribund. Sixty years and hundreds of billions of dollars pissed down the drain later, we have the clue bat: It didn't work.
Verity
July 4th, 2009 10:26pm Report this commentBattle 2807 writes: "in my opinion 40 million pounds a day would be a price worth paying IF the EU were to butt out of so many parts of our life. IF they were to just leave us alone, it would be worth the price."
I believe we had the experience of Danegeld once before and it didn't work out too well.
First lieutenant with bicycle
July 5th, 2009 3:50pm Report this commentSurely the one government department that should be ring-fenced is defence; not least because a decade or more of New Labour over-stretch and under-investment means that if the MoD has to offer up another 7% (or 10%) the RAF will be history, the Royal Navy will become little more than a coastal defence force and the army will struggle to man up even UN observer missions.
Back to top