The centre left asks how? Well, here’s how

Vulture

If only the Liebour sneers were right and Dave were an uber-Thatcherite. It's not often that the absurd Toynbeee is right, but in describing Dave as a butterfly flitting around social policy without leaving a policy footprint behind is bang on the money. The only word in her appraisal that I would query is 'intelligently'.

She does not appreciate that puffball, souffle politics is Dave's style. It may be enough to get the heir to Blair elected but it won't be enough for Government. But since he'll only be the boss of a glorified County Council in the EU's superstate that may not matter.

Rhoda Klapp

Who imagines that problems which could not be solved by a centre-left approach will respond to one just pushed over the border into centre-right? Same as before, but with a few token cuts? A few dodgy incentives, but the same old benefit traps moved around a bit? This is not small state, it offers pretty much the same size state. Better than an expansion, but not by much.

I do not say something more radical is needed, but I do say anything not radical is no more likely to succeed than up to now. But I wonder whether they really really want to get rid of the problem.

Here's the clue again. Find out where it works best, and copy that. No sacred cows, no pre-conditions.

Kate Denham

The level of efficiency possible with even a few minor adjustments to the way public money is spent is mind boggling. Given that current estimates suggest that £2bn a week is being lost on administrative mistakes in the benefits system alone - I think you might find it'll be easier for Dave to find some up front funding than it first appears.

Set that against a context of £700bn budgetted spent on public services this year alone and the measly £2.7bn pales into insignificance. Given that, if done properly the proposals have the capacity to spark efficiences and cost savings at levels that no election-seeking politician would ever think of promising, I'm completely behind Dave on this one.

At any rate, I think I've found the answer - wasn't last year's DWP admin bill exactly £2.7bn....?

David Blackburn

Kate Denham,

Very interesting figures - where can I find them?

DavidDP

Good to see Cameron pushing a traditional Tory One Nation agenda.

JR

No. There is another criticism of Cameron's approach and that is the range of conservative proposals are fundementally incompatable.

They have talked about localism and trusting the professionals when vast swaths of their policy require huge central control and monitoring even if service provision is through charities or private companies.

Vast swaths of their welfare, education, health and social policy ignore this contradiction. If you look at the exeperience of the 80s this was a central problem particularly in local government reforms - the Conservatives build an alternative beauracracy to contract, monitor and report on private provision of public services to enable 'value for money' to measured and accountablity to be retained by politicans.

And in the 90s and 00s that moved into areas of central government. League tables and targets were as much Thatcher's invention as they were Major and Blair's.

That is not neccesarily to say the localised private provision of services is wrong however the evidence of the last 20 years suggests there are severe problems with the model.

In any case without the absence of a new poll tax to devolve tax and spending to a local level it is impossible to deliver a localism agenda with any accountability.

And at a national level the new model of welfare provision Cameron majored on yesterday embodies the difficulties. It expects the beauracracy or politicans to be able to price job (and other more nebulous) outcomes in local areas, judge the value for money of proposals from private providers and charities, and then monitor their delivery such that the providers will be paid by results.

Now you could privatise the beauracracy you need to do that however that creates a Russian Doll of companies delivering a Government contract to montior other companies delivering other contracts. A similar issue emerges with schools policy - reinforcing the choice model with free schools requires him to keep the significant monitoring of schools in place to enable parents to make choices and for there not to be huge scandals when a private school goes feral.

I've had a chat with someone at the Centre for Social Justice and they weren't blind to all of these issues - in fact they seemed to be assuming Cameron was being disengenous about the localism agenda and actually simply plans a centerally driven and controlled contracting out (privatisation) strategy for services (schools/welfare etc) with charities delivering part of that.

At least they know what the real game is and what else is just politics......but Cameron's brand of fundementally undeliverable opposition politics will come back to bite him soon enough.

AAE

Savings of 3.4 billion a year? That's hardly even a speck off the cost of government borrowing. Any incoming CEO would look at a company's books and not unrealistically think that he could cut costs by 10%, so when Cameron starts talking about reducing spending by say 50 or 70 billion a year, then I'll take him seriously.

JR

Kate - it's £2bn a year not a week. That's a huge amount but we should proably put it in perspective compared to the £220bn sent out in state pensions and benefits. Roughly its the same fraud and error rate (% of funds dealt with) as a big UK bank.

Without a dramatic and expensive simplification of state pensions and all benefits I'd suggest international and UK bank comparisons suggest you'd struggle to reduce the fraud and error rate significantly through any organisational (i.e. privatisation) or other change.

I'd also suggest you're grown up about the DWP spend. What are you suggesting we'd shut down the computer systems that hold details of the people that should be paid pensions each week, and shutdown every Jobcentre? That's what that £2.7bn goes on! Even if you privatised the lot you'd probably make 5% saving and it would cost a hell of a lot more in the short term as you transitioned.

Rhoda Klapp

Closing every Jobentre would probably add to the sum of human happiness. They really are both useless and offensive if you go there looking for help. Anyone had a positive experience there?

Luke

David, you're surely not right that he is planning any kind of short-term increase in spending. Where is the evidence of that?

David Blackburn

Luke,

They are targetted - eg. IDS's proposal, assuming it is adopted.

Dave B

Wasn't IDS suggestion of £2.7 billion upfront costs just for one scenario? I seem to recall there was also a cost neutral proposal.

Andy

We could stop paying the EU subs - that would help.

Rainer Unsinn

GSmith posted this on the "Road to Recovery" blog:
"The number of people in public sector employment was 6.04 million in June 2009, up 13,000 from March 2009. The number of people in private sector employment was 22.84 million, down 212,000 from March 2009."

If the Tories reverse the ever-expanding public sector, I'm sure there's billions to be found in there, without reducing services.

jon

yes, stop paying the eu subs until the accounts are audited then ask for a cut. The French are only replacing every two retiring civil servants with one new recruit.

2trueblue

Well we could just get Labour to continue and we will get Mandy or Millie or Hattie?

My husband says he will vote for a monkey to get rid of Labour. I don't think he is the only one.

Polly believes in relative poverty, I believe in reality. We have had 12 years of being lied to, robbed of our future, criminalised, our culture eliminated, our pensions destroyed, education muddled, partnerships, iniatives, targets, a defecit that is mindboggling, and right now are involved in a scorched earth policy. Forgot to mention that they couldn't be bothered with forward planning in the fuel area.

Then there is the wee matter of the expenses, they have been lining their pockets and now do not want to take the medicine that they asked for to clean it up.

Goodness me, this is what they did to us, and we let them.

I don't think Cameron is a saint, but just because someone was born into a privilaged background, so he cannot possibly understand any of the problems that we are affected by. That is incredible arrogance and ignorance.

That chap from Fetties hadn't a clue, Hatties went to St Pauls, so thats all right then? OF course they are in the Labour party. This is a wonderfully shortsighted view and as far as I am concerned has no traction.

We all know that if we do not get a change with a strong majority this country is doomed, and as we leave we will not have to worry about turing out the light.

Nicholas

Rhoda "Anyone had a positive experience there?"

No, the reporting conditions make you feel like you are on bail. I once went to an interview on my "reporting day" and couldn't get back in time. Although I telephoned them they insisted I go in the next day and give a sworn and signed statement explaining my "absconding". I wrote a fantastic and convaluted story about being abducted by aliens and taken to a planet where everyone looked like androgenous Yvette Coopers. They didn't even read it before filing it.

Ghastly experience but typical of the default position that everyone is a suspected criminal until proven innocent that the socialist swine have imposed on every walk of life. Their view of all the poor unfortunates who have to go there is that they are scrounging benefits cheats and the primary aim seems to be to verify that they are not. They completely disregard the individual circumstances or the individual life/work record. I had never been unemployed in my life, was over 50 and hated having to go there yet they still treated me as though I was trying to pull a fast one. The finding work bit seemed to be an annoying distraction from their primary Stasi purpose of making sure I was not putting one over on them.

Then there is this personal journal of positions applied for and interviews attended to prove you are actively seeking work which has to be filled in and presented at each weekly "apel".

Places are full of "Regulation Bob" making sure you comply with all their silly little rules but useless when it comes to assessing you properly and finding you suitable work. The whole shambles is a microcosm of utter New Labour bollocks and the Long March of the Left 1969-2009.