The 100 Days
David Blackburn 9:05am
It’s been 100 days since love was in the air in the Rose Garden. So, how’s
it been for you? For most, the Honeymoon continues. An ICM poll for the Telegraph
reveals that 46 percent think the government is governing well and that 44 percent believe the government is doing a ‘good job’ in securing economic recovery, against 37 percent who
think we’re irreversibly on the road to ruin.
True, spending cuts have not yet hit the easily swayed and the government’s popularity will recede, but it won’t collapse – the 37 percent who think the economy is doomed do so for ideological reasons, the economy has not tanked yet. More serious are the Liberal Democrat’s stunted poll ratings, but the price paid for absconding from their self-professed duty to restore stability to the nation’s finances will be even greater – this is the Liberal Democrat’s great moment.
The Times (£), The Sun, The Mirror and The BBC appraise the coalition’s performance. All conclude that the government has wasted no time in addressing the deficit, only The Mirror questions the sense of having done so. However, the coalition’s other efforts attract a dose of criticism. The government has moved at breakneck speed to reform education, welfare, university funding, the ministry of defence, criminal justice, the electoral system and NHS commissioning. Aside from whether those are worthwhile reforms in the long-run, they have had the effect of clouding the public spending review, the government’s immediate priority. Already the Treasury has fought IDS and lost; it is also fighting Liam Fox, Ken Clarke, Chris Huhne and Vince Cable. It is good that inter-departmental discussion thrives, but, as the IDS case illustrates, George Osborne will find it hard to extract departmental cuts of 25 percent, which means he will have to raise taxes to eradicate national overspend. The taxpayer will end up footing the bill for this government’s enthusiasm.
Previous
Nicholas
August 18th, 2010 9:25am Report this commentReform at breakneck speed? Or announcements dipping their tentative toes in the water of public opinion?
We still have too much New Labour law, too much New Labour bureacracy, too much New Labour language ("sending messages", etc.) and too many quangos. We don't want messages sent we want resolute, direct action to dismantle the socialist state.
Just get on with it.
And 100 days? The sooner this arbitrary, corporate America piece of nonsense is dispensed with the better.
justathought
August 18th, 2010 10:01am Report this commentThe £100bn cost of Trident is the elephant in the room. Remove that from the spending and the coalition is well on its way to meeting its target on cutting the deficit. More importantly there's only so much pain that the voters can absorb in one go, and really Trident is not a priority for most people.
The spending review is necessary and as the ICM poll shows the public are behind the coalition. Basically the public spending was bloated and now its being trimmed.
I hope that they keep up the momentum while they enjoy the support they have as the sooner the savings are delivered the quicker the recovery will come.
StrongholdBarricades
August 18th, 2010 10:35am Report this commentMaybe we should be measuring what has actually been done.
What has actually happened, besides the rhetoric?
John Bracewell
August 18th, 2010 10:55am Report this commentI agree with Nicholas @9.25. (could be a catchphrase in that somewhere)
Most 'activity' so far has been in the form of announcements, except the Education bill on Academies that was squeezed through. Even the emergency budget only set the scene, cuts in October, VAT next January, tax allowance raised next April etc. So, the scene has been set in a hurry but the actual delivery is still to come, this applies to the economy, voting reform, IDS's benefits, most of the education reforms and so on.
I would like to see a list of the announcements made, displayed quarterly and then be notified as and when delivery is achieved. It may be well be both a spur to the government to deliver on their announcements and to hold their collective tongues on items that are unlikely to see the light.
TrevorsDen
August 18th, 2010 10:56am Report this commentSurely we cannot reduce the deficit without reform? What is the point of simply cutting without ensuring that money left is spent efficiently?
The failure to reform was Blair's failure and Browns curse.
normanc
August 18th, 2010 11:21am Report this commentFor me the elephants in the room are interest repayments and the unions.
It's all very well to gradually reduce the deficit over the course of a Parliament but even in 5 years time, on the most optimistic of forecasts, we'll still be borrowing. Those interest repayments are really going to start to hurt.
It's also all very well saying 'we'll reform this' and 'we'll reform that' (Tony Blair c.1997, coaltion c.2010) but unless the coalition have the appetite to tackle the public sector unions very little will actually be reformed.
Richard of York
August 18th, 2010 11:41am Report this commentICM poll in the Guardian makes interesting reading. It took the tory party 11 years to do this but a leaderless Labour party manage it in 100 days.
justathought
August 18th, 2010 12:15pm Report this comment@normac
I agree except that its not the public sector Unions that are the problem but the public sector pay and final salary pensions.
A quick look at the top paid Director's salary for one of the major housing associations, MOAT, shows it went up from £133k in 2008 to £178k in 2009. What will it be when the accounts are published next month is anyones guess. But one things certain is that these run-away salary increases in publicly funded bodies has to be reined in. How can it be that they earn more than the PM?
Verityred
August 18th, 2010 12:23pm Report this commentLabour are in lie and deny mode Dicky, bleating and rolling their bulging eyes. Difficult decisions cost support and Labour, particularly during the dreadful Brown years that even they admit were awful, simply haven't the courage to make such decisions, in government, or admit what they would do, in opposition.
Ed
August 18th, 2010 3:15pm Report this commentPunctuation note: it should be Liberal Democrats', not Liberal Democrat's.
Richard of York
August 18th, 2010 3:24pm Report this commentOh my what a card that Verityred is...hehe!
Pager firmly grasped and on message....repeat whenever the facts go against you shout "deficit denier"
Oh my oh my what a card!
Cut the deficit your own way Cameron lets see you make the decisions for a change and not just take the opportunist line.
Back to top