Public sector

Choice — easy to talk about, a slog to deliver

The birth of the White Paper on public service reform was a tortuous business — but, now it’s been out for several months, the government is keen to make the most of it. David Cameron is launching an ‘updated’ version today, with a few new proposals contained therein. He also has an article in the Telegraph outlining those ideas, including the one that seems to be getting the most attention: draft legislation to give people a ‘right to choose’ their public services. It feels like both an important and potentially inconsequential moment all at once. Enshrining choice in the laws of this land is a powerful symbol that people shouldn’t

Osborne’s economic and political reasons for local pay rates

George Osborne has just fired the first shot in the fight over the 2012 Budget. His decision to introduce local pay for the 160,000 civil servants coming off the public sector pay freeze is, as is often the case with Chancellor Osborne, both an economic and a political move. The economic case for local pay is straightforward. National pay rates mean that public sector workers are relatively underpaid in prosperous areas of the country and relatively overpaid in deprived areas. Pay that reflected local conditions would make for a more balanced economy, helping the private sector in those parts of the country where the public sector is currently dominant. But

Unemployment’s high, but at least it’s stopped rising

So, new jobs figures out today. Which do you want first: the bad news, or the kind-of-alright news? The bad news is that employment’s showing no signs of growth: the total number in work has been stuck at 29.1 million since it fell there in the summer. It’s a touch better than the trough of 28.8 million we hit at the end of 2009, but still half a million below where we were when the recession hit. And we’re showing no signs of getting there any time soon: And the not-so-bad news? Unemployment’s slightly down on last month, which was slightly down on the month before. It’s not a big

May’s quiet revolution

Do you remember the great parliamentary battle over privatisation of police services? Me neither, which is why Theresa May, the Home Secretary, is proving a better minister than Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary. The drive for savings in the police budget is leading two constabularies, West Midlands and Surrey, to outsource certain services. The Guardian has got hold of the tender documents and splashed with the story today. Yvette Cooper is angry — but, crucially, there’s nothing she can do. Theresa May doesn’t need legislation to enact this reform; it’s not even being done under orders of the Home Office. This is two police forces who would rather save money

The dark side of the Big Society

The A4e scandal is getting worse. Emma Harrison has quit as David Cameron’s back-to-work tsar, the police are still investigating a case discovered last year and there’s a suggestion their investigation is widening. This is, for David Cameron, the dark side of the Big Society. In my Daily Telegraph column today, I explain why. ‘The Big Society’ is a silly name for a good idea: that lots of companies, charities, etc will help provide government services. They are given freedom to innovate, to create — and the freedom to get things badly wrong. This is the freedom which A4e seems to have availed itself of. It grew like crazy, perhaps

Balls’ attempt at credibility falls short

‘I must be responsible and credible in what I say.’ No, it’s not Bart Simpson writing on the blackboard at the start of The Simpsons, although it may have been said with just as little enthusiasm. It’s Ed Balls on the Today programme this morning, explaining his decision to endorse George Osborne’s public sector pay freeze. Balls’ interview in today’s Guardian is his biggest effort so far to sound ‘responsible and credible’ on the economy. His admission that ‘we can make no commitments to reverse any of [the cuts], on spending or on tax’ is nothing new – in his September conference speech he said ‘no matter how much we

Unions hit government on pension changes

The coalition’s plan to leave the Public and Commercial Services Union isolated in its opposition to the proposed changes to public sector pensions has had several setbacks today. The Unite union, which is a major Labour donor, has declared that the government’s offer on NHS pensions is inadequate. This suggests that Unite members in the health service, of whom there are 100,000, could go out on strike again soon. Another worry for the government is that the British Medical Association, the doctors’ trade union, is indicating that it might hold a strike ballot once it has canvassed the views of its members. Ultimately, I think the government can win the

Why ‘starving the beast’ may not work

Steven F. Hayward’s audit of the state of American conservatism, which David Brooks judges to be one of the best magazine articles of the year, argues that the Reaganite ‘starve the beast strategy’ has failed to halt the growth of government. Hayward writes: ‘Thirty years after the arrival of the Reagan Revolution, government is bigger than ever. The Reagan years appear to have been little more than a mild speed bump in the progress of ever-larger government. The regulatory state advances relentlessly on every front. The soaring national debt threatens economic oblivion sooner or later. In short, the Reagan era, for all that was accomplished, was not an analogue to

An early Christmas present for the coalition

It has only taken several months of bitter negotiation and a national strike to get here, but a deal between the unions and the government over public sector pensions could finally be in sight. Danny Alexander has just announced the details in Parliament, but basically it seems that, across a range of schemes, the coalition has offered kinder accrual rates than it did in November. And this more generous proposal has now been accepted in principle, or at least not turned down, by 26 of the 28 relevant unions. Among those who still oppose it outright are the PCS, led by everyone’s favourite union malcontent, Mark Serwotka. What happens next,

Who’s right on public v private employment?

If you listened to PMQs yesterday, then you’ll have heard two very different accounts of what’s happening in the labour market right now. Had Ed Miliband been able to get anyone’s attention, they’d have heard him say: ‘over the last three months, for every job being created in the private sector, thirteen are being lost in the public sector.’ Cameron’s response: ‘Since the election, in the private sector there have been 581,000 extra jobs. In the public sector, he’s right, we have lost 336,000 jobs.’ According to the Labour leader’s figures, public sector losses are far greater than private sector growth. But according to Cameron’s, the private sector is more

First, Shoot All the Teachers*

Our local paper, the Southern Reporter, reports that “2,000 public service workers” took the day off work yesterday. Sorry, withdrew their labour to protest against a monstrous government regiment that should horrify and disgust all sensible people. Soon, you know, armed resistance will be necessary. Fine. But, in these parts at least, it is interesting to see which taxpayer-funded workers struck. The Southern reports that: 1,200 teachers were on strike (78% of all teaching staff). 400 non-teaching staff (45% of all non-classroom staff). 68 of 1,400 people in the social work department did not report for work. 23 of 900 workers in the infrastructure department were out. 28 of 400

James Forsyth

Osborne’s Autumn Statement was about creating more Tories

In this week’s Spectator – which hits newsstands today – James Forsyth reveals the political calculations behind the Chancellor’s announcements on Tuesday. Here, for CoffeeHousers, is a taster of James’ column: The government wants to be seen as on the side of necessary but fair reform; facing down opponents who believe in ‘something for nothing economics’. Public sector unions, with their desire to protect pensions that are far more generous than those on offer in the private sector, are ideal opponents in the eyes of coalition strategists. On Tuesday, George Osborne chose to raise the stakes in this battle. He announced that he was asking ‘the independent pay review bodies to

Another voice: Why the strike is right

If I were a teacher, I’d be on strike today. Public sector workers are being asked — in what is now a well-rehearsed soundbite — to work longer, receive less, and pay more. In these austere times, with deficit reduction a necessity,  two of those three aims might be reasonable. But doing all three at once, and conflating the package with the spurious notion that public sector pensions are ‘unsustainable’, justifies the direct action being taken today.   The rise in contribution rates — in effect a three per cent tax rise — will be especially hard to bear for those on modest salaries who are already facing a prolonged

The unions’ pension myths

This morning I debated the President of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers live on Sky News.  It was incredible how few answers she had when confronted with the facts about the strike. According to research at the Office for National Statistics, public sector workers are paid 7.8 per cent more than those in the private sector after controlling for things like age and qualifications. And they get far more generous pensions, worth about a quarter of their pay (see here, p35), on top of that — with most of the cost paid for by taxpayers. But they striking and opposing quite modest reforms, creating yet more disruption for the

Alex Massie

Ed Miliband’s Strange Political Judgement

I know Ed Miliband isn’t trying to persuade me or, for that matter, many Spectator readers but I still don’t understand what he’s up to or trying to achieve. At PMQs today he had an obvious choice: attack the government on the economy or on today’s strikes by government-paid workers. Bafflingly he chose the latter, wrapping himself in the red union flag. Not for the first time, one’s left questioning Miliband’s political judgement. The easy answer, much-used by the Prime Minister today, is that Labour is paid by the Trades Unions without whose contributions the party would be bankrupt. Plainly there is some truth to this and perhaps Miliband has

Will the strikes exacerbate Cameron’s women problem?

We’ve already heard a lot about Dave’s problem with female voters. Melanie McDonagh wrote our cover piece on it in June, and in September there was that memo detailing Number 10’s efforts to respond. But, judging by the polls, we may well be hearing even more about it after today’s strikes. It seems that, while the government has men broadly on its side in the battle against the unions, women are far less supportive. 51 per cent of men told ComRes that public sector workers are wrong to strike today, but only 42 per cent of women agreed: TNS BMRB asked people whether they thought that the government was right

A day of disruption

Another testing day for the government, as we shift from the autumn statement to a national strike. It will certainly be more noticeable than the industrial action in June. Some 2 million public sector workers will be involved. According to the schools minister Nick Gibb, around 75 per cent of state schools will be closed. And on top of that, airport queues will lengthen; non-emergency operations will be cancelled; and today’s parliamentary proceedings will go untranscribed. The government’s attitude towards the unions — or, rather, union bosses — appears to have been hardening. The brothers will not have liked yesterday’s forecast that 710,000 jobs will be shed from the public sector by

How much are we paying towards next week’s strike?

Next week, millions of public sector workers will go on strike over proposed changes to their pensions. And yet, even after the reforms, those pensions will still be far more generous than most taxpayers working in the private sector — who will pick up the bill — can expect. It’s going to be hard to convince people of the ‘fairness’ of paying more into public sector pensions than they do into their own. The unions will do their best though. And the real irony is in how their campaigns are funded. Guess who is paying for unions to organise strikes that will disrupt the public services that taxpayers pay for?

Maude lends the unions a hand

Francis Maude presents himself as a man trying to help the unions out in today’s Financial Times. Some unions say they have to go ahead with strikes on November 30 – even though negotiations on pension changes are still going on – or else they’d lose their mandate for any future strikes and have to conduct a whole new ballot. Wagging an almost parental finger, Maude tells the unions: ‘You shouldn’t have got yourself into this mess but we’re willing to help you out because we want to protect the public. I can’t imagine any employer in the public sector would say if you have a token strike of a