As most of us had read or heard the CSR statement read out in the House of Commons, there was some debate as to whether it was necessary to repeat it in the House of Lords. We decided it was and it was read out again – all 65 minutes of it. This left little time to discuss it, but we were promised a full debate on 1st November.
When considering statements, the House of Lords is less adversarial and more analytical than the House of Commons. There are also many reminiscences to which the House listens with patience. However, on this occasion we did debate whether the medicine was more serious than the disease and which was more likely to kill the patient. Although there was debate about fairness and sharing the burden, there was also discussion about the process. Would the cuts work? Would the savings be achieved? We were reminded that budgets rarely work out in practice. This was said in the context of the risk we are taking that if things didn’t work out we would be even worse off.
I think most of us will feel real impact when our own local authority make their cuts in services.
But my concern is about jobs. The potential job losses in the public sector are large and new jobs in the private sector will not necessarily be in the same place. The changes in housing benefit and welfare will make it more difficult for people to move. This added to the plans for a universal credit welfare system will give rise to a lot of unintended consequences. Perhaps it would have been wiser to open the public sector more to competition from the private sector. Where this has been done in the NHS, in prisons and in welfare to work, the public sector has done remarkably well. But this is an area where ideology is stronger than fact.
I hope the outcome will be that this crisis obliges us to reappraise our priorities for a welfare state in the 21st century.
I have concerns as many do but it is difficult to analyse without exact data. Some cuts do seem contrary to what overall achievement is hoped, it will result in a loss of jobs particularly to women, judging by the informatioon available and yet getting Mums back into work has been a prioirity. There simply will not be the work.
The cuts that we know are coming to our Police Forces mean they will be stretched more, generally on the streets. With the poor pushed harder with Welfare reform the likeliehood is that we shall see more crime, yet the Prison service will also lose places and I expect manpower. The Victorian ethos of everyone should work hard is all well and good when there is work but there simply won`t be enough. Those left struggling will face higher hoops to jump through for benefits, I dare say some will fail. I would imagine Crime will be the first industry to see expansion.
It appears the poor will lose most, the CSR is unequal. Yes we need people off of Welfare but we know that the net result of these cuts will be job losses, I just don`t see the logic. The only job gains will be, yet again, a Government fiddling with departments stating they are creating a better way. Inland Revenue having yet again more put on it`s plate in terms of changes to Tax Credits etc., I don`t think it got over having benefits foisted upon it originally without the necessary tools and people, maybe why we see so many mistakes from it nowadays.
If welfare is made harder, if we state, quite rightly, the need for employment, we must be able to provide those people with jobs.
Hopefully Lord Haskel is indicating that he wishes legislation to be made fully adequate for both the immediate sustainabilities and the long-term ‘thousand-year’ sustain-worthinesses, both of Government-Judiciary-CivilService-Community(The People)-occupations-and- workers;
& of the so-called ‘Private-Sector’s’ (“economic”*) equivalents ?
* Viz its similar-to-government over-destructivism towards an already increasingly short-falling Earth-Lifesupports Environment …
=============
145108Th21Oct10
Is this Government totally mad “Housing Minister Grant Shapps has defended plans to bring social housing rents closer to private sector levels”
2/3 of people in Social Housing are on Housing benefit & Council Tax Benefit.
http://statistics.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.php?page=hbctb
Instead of bringing greedy Landlords who charge a fortune often for sub-standard accomodation down a level, this Government intends to raise money on the backs of the needy in Social housing. A 3 bed house here in the South East, privately rented will cost you £175 per week plus, infact the Local allowance is set at £795 per month.
With Minimum wage bringing in £238 per week gross that doesn`t leave a lot for someone on the breadline. Put in to that that the Government intends to lower the amount applicants will get for Council Tax Benefit whilst raising rent levels and we can see who will pay more of the deficit.
This will also give greedy Landlords a green light to raise rents so to pass on their part of the deficit repayment. I`ll not mention the levy on banks which will only get passed to consumers, yet.
Same old, same old Tories ! Is it any wonder when Labour get in they get their own back. Couple of kids the pair of you, grow up, do the bloomin math properly. If you charge more for Social Housing rent and two thirds are on benefit where does it come from ? Yes you`ll screw the poor people when lowering their benefit, yes you`ll create more wealth for the already greedy rich Landlords but you`ll be out on your ear sooner than you think.
A child can do this math. Remember the Winter of Discontent, well there`s a new one coming. There`s an old saying that fits ” Don`t pee down my back and tell me it`s raining”.
As a taxpayer who has seen ever-increasing amounts of my hard-earned cash taken in various stealth taxes and duties, I want to see value for money. My impression of the government machine as it currently stands, is that it is limping along with a lack of lubricant causing drag and slowing it down and is built with far too many cylinders. It’s consuming far too much fuel (our money) and even if it was better lubricated, it’s still over-large for the purpose.
I would be interested to see how much government (both local and national) cost us in 1997 and how much it costs now. All that regulation and bureaucracy introduced by the previous government has had little visible beneficial effect except for manufacturers of red tape.
Lord Haskel welcome to the blog. Its about time Lord Soley had some competition and I think we would all would enjoy a differing socialist perspective.
I won’t comment on what you have to say except to point out that the health and sense of well being of many must be a further consideration in the events that are about to unfold.
On the analytical side, is there a single ‘moment’ that could have taken us down a differing road to prosperity? I believe there was and that moment was lost to us when the office of Secretary of State for Economic Affairs was abandoned in 1969.
Specifically, the idea of re-equipping British industry under a version of the Marshall plan. Both the late Lord George Brown and Lord Roll of Ipsden fought the Treasury and lost the argument.
But here we go again. We all feel in our bones what needs to be done but the dire state of public finances causes the Treasury once again to address the immediate need rather than commit itself to the longer term. Now that we are part of the EC subsidising British industry on the scale envisioned in the 1960’s would be out of the question on competition grounds.