A Letter to the Guardian - Part 94

A proper blog with my thoughts on Conservative Party Conference to follow shortly, but first more amusement in this week's Epsom Guardian, where my letter of last week seems to have struck a nerve with Dr. Ted Bailey of Larkspur Way:

I bashed out a vague reply on the train this morning. It will obviously be cut down extensively should I choose to actually send it in, but I thought I would post it here for posterity.

It would take too long to ‘fisk’ Dr. Bailey’s letter (‘Speed and depth of public cuts doom us’) in its entirety, but I do offer these brief points by way of reply.

I do not view my projections for the private sector as unduly optimistic. The private sector created more than 300,000 jobs over the Summer months. The lowering of business rates and cancellation of NI for the first ten employees of any new company point to this pattern continuing.

Dr. Bailey is also wrong to suggest that the UK has seen ‘already savage cuts’ since the election. I know of no Governmental cuts to Sure Start since May. As to the cancellation of the BSF, if he wishes to defend such a bureaucratic monstrosity good luck to him. He will have to explain the merits of a school building scheme where it can often take three years to negotiate the planning process before the first brick is laid on the building itself; a scheme that saw costs rocket from £45 to 55bn due to consultant spend and red tape; and a scheme that was already three years behind schedule in 2009.

The countries he mentions in his letter as currently heading toward ‘double-dip’ recessions make my point for me, in that they are examples of what can go wrong if high spending is not restrained over a prolonged period of time. Interestingly, I was going to use Ireland as an example of a country which successfully managed to heavily reduce its spending whilst increasing economic growth, in the 1980s, but was unable to do so for reasons of space. I welcome the chance to do so now!

A final note. Alistair Darling did not propose a slower cuts programme, merely a smaller reduction over the same time-scale; 40% structural deficit reduction in 4yrs, rather than total reduction as the current Government is planning for. However, with current interest rates on our debt coming in at over £100m per day, I believe cutting our debt completely in this time-frame is no longer an aspiration of an Opposition – it is a necessity of Government.

James Tarbit

Deputy Chair, Political

Epsom and Ewell Conservative Future

P.s. For the record, Conservative Future is the section of the Conservative Party for under-30 year olds. With a membership of approximately 20,000, it is the largest youth political organisation in the UK.

The Big Society - A Flower Bed Too Far?

The Big Society was always one of the more diaphanous elements of the Conservative manifesto in the recent General Election. Ostensively a codification of previous attempts to conjoin local government and local community groups, it has been described as the Conservative Manifesto’s ‘Big Idea’ as well as an easy way to get cuts in through the back door.

Personally, I have always been a fan of the idea. The concept that community groups, charities, and NGOs should be more involved in the delivery of local services is not new, but if it is to succeed in any measurable way, the involvement of Westminster is welcome. Local Councils too, I had imagined, would be fans of the scheme. In the face of declining government grants, any chance to use interested parties to ensure the money goes further would be welcome. It seems, in Epsom and Ewell at least, I was wrong.

I have blogged previously about the recent Hub project – an excellent example of the ethos of the Big Society in action. A post on the Epsom Conservatives blog – run by Conservative Leader on the Borough Council, Sean Sullivan – the other day seemed to offer up another potential scheme; gardening. With less money available for landscaping in the Borough, why not get local groups involved? Hey, it worked for Newsnight!

It seems, though, that my suggestion of getting local groups involved to assist the Council in keeping its flower beds up to scratch didn’t go down too well with Liberal Democrat Councillor Anna Jones…

Not a believer in the Big Society, it would seem.

Personally, I see only positives in using the talents and interests of the local community to help the shrinking Council budget to stretch further. I’m not talking about getting local residents in to replace redundant public servants. I’m merely saying if we muck in here, they can focus their time more efficiently in other areas.

For the record Anna, time allowing, I would be willing to help out in any way I can. As far as school dinners go I’ll even cook the pudding. We could call it Jamie’s School Dinners?

Paleolithic politics

I have watched the grandstanding from the TUC over the past few days with a sense of both sadness and deja vu.

I fully understand the right of individuals to petition their employers for improvements in circumstance and pay. When, however, Bob Crow can stand at the lectern and call for a campaign of 'civil disobedience' in the face of cuts that all Parties agreed were necessary to differing degrees, and garner support from the floor, then something is deeply wrong.

Yesterday, Mark Serwotka - head of the PCS Union - called for not only a moratorium on public sector job cuts, but even an increase in public sector funding to lift us out of recession. Failing to see that it will be the private sector - in particular small/medium enterprise within this sector - that will most likely provide the growth we so need, misses the point entirely and risks a further decline into deficit and debt.

The most glaring hole in the Unionist argument has been posed very effectively by City Unslicker - what would they do instead? In the face of almost unilateral agreement on the necessity of spending cuts - Labour's plan was to halve the deficit within four years - how would they ensure their aims?

The Unions obviously feel that the time has come to show their hand. It remains to be seen whether the result is similar to that of 1974, where industrial action had the result of bringing down the Government, or of the early 1980s, where the Unions' power was crushed by a government organised and determined enough to face them down.