The economic crisis has predominated political headlines in this country for most of the last eighteen months. The next General Election will be fought on economic issues. The part that can most convince the British people it is the best party to sort out our economic mess will be victors in May. What has not been in the news and what will not be the subject of key-note speeches from the party leaders in May is the breakdown in society we are experiencing in Britain today.
To halt this breakdown in the social fabric of the United Kingdom, Britain desperately needs a dose of One Nation Conservatism. Liberal, compassionate, caring conservatism that kick starts the social revival Britain is craving for. This is what David Cameron must offer the British people at the next election because it is the right thing to do.
Unlike some in the Conservative Party, I do not hold some romantic hopes for a Thatcherite revival in Britain after the next election. Indeed I think the last thing Britain needs is a dose of the Iron Lady's medicine. Margaret Thatcher was a fantastic Prime Minister, one of our best. But she was a women of her time. She could only ever have been elected as a Conservative at that time with those set of circumstances. Thatcherism revived the British economy and raised it to great strength. But its complete failure to take account of Britain's social needs as well as its economic needs has meant that Thatcher herself must take some of the blame for our broken society. Thatcherism is always defined in economic terms, nobody can ever really come up with a definition of what Thatcherite Social Policy ever was; that's because Thatcher never really had a social policy. What little social policy she did have largely manifested itself in her cruel vilification of the homosexual community.
But the social challenge facing us today is comparable to the economic challenge facing Thatcher in 1979. That is why Britain needs a One Nation Conservative government that will repair the damage of the last thirty years. Disraeli's observations of a society of 'two nations' in his novel Cybil ring true today. Under Labour, the rich have gotten richer whilst the poor have gotten poorer, Labour has built fewer council houses than the Conservatives did under Thatcher, Britain is now a country devoid of social mobility and we have nearly 20% of 18-24 year olds unemployed. All of this under a government that supposedly cares. A One Nation government, spurred on by the likes of Disraeli and Macmillan, reconciled to the welfare state and Labour's achievements such as the minimum wage, should carry on the great Conservative tradition of social reform after the next election.
If David Cameron does win the next election, as I certainly hope he will, he will have to deal with the nation's finances. But he must do that with regard for the wider ramifications of his actions for society. The Conservatives must not ignore Britain's social needs as they did the last time they were in government; they must realise them and address them. David Cameron will then become the social reformer he so evidently wants to be.
Monday, 18 January 2010
Friday, 15 January 2010
The Tuition Fees Dilemma
In the very near future, the government will review the current limits on tuition fees. They’ll have three main options: keep the current cap at just over £3,000; increase tuition fees to something like £5,000 a year; or abolish them altogether. With the national debt growing, ministers are in a sticky situation and have a tricky problem on their hands.
‘Top-up fees’ were first introduced in 2004 to deal with a funding crisis in higher education. Universities were demanding more money and they still are today. Universities claim they are struggling to find the cash to continue offering the range of courses and the number of places they want to. They’re even struggling to pay their staff. University lecturers recently went on strike in a dispute over pay.
But the problem is resurfacing once more. The president of Universities UK recently said “Universities will require further injections of resources, from whatever source, if they are to continue to provide the high quality student experience for which we are internationally renowned”. But with the taxpayer running out of money, there is only one source from which this money must come and that is tuition fees.
The introduction of tuition fees in 2004 prompted concerns that people would be put off by the cost of university and applications would fall. On the contrary, university applications hit another record high this summer and look like they’ll continue to go up. Even with fees, more students from low income families go to university in England than do in Scotland, despite the
fact that students no longer pay tuition fees there. So it seems the cost isn’t putting people off.
But there is the problem of debt. If most of us leave Sixth Form and go on to university, we can expect to leave higher education with a debt of around £15,000, and that is a conservative estimate. It is now a harsh reality for many young people in the UK that they must begin their working lives with massive debts to pay off. However, as much as we like to moan about the debt, we do reap the benefits. Nothing is free in life and the same goes for a good job. With a university degree, graduates are far more likely to get high -earning jobs and get bigger salaries. In a way, the debt you incur at university is an investment in your future.
Futures would not be so bright if we did abolish university tuition fees altogether. With university education free, many more young people would see it as a way to avoid working for another three years and we’d see more and more people going to university and getting degrees. Forget the government’s target of 50% of the population going to university; we would quite
easily exceed that. This has major implications for graduates.
Graduate job prospects are already shrinking. Graduates are being forced to apply for jobs in supermarkets because there are no graduate jobs available. And with more and more people earning degrees, the situation will get worse. Degrees will become less valuable and your three years at university will have gone to waste. Employers will start to asking more and more
often for their employees to have postgraduate degrees because they won’t be able to distinguish between those who don’t.
Somebody ultimately has to pay for university education and money doesn’t grow on trees. In an ideal world we’d turn the clock back 30 years to when people did go to university for free but we can’t. Back then, barely 10% of the population went to university; we’re now talking about 30 —40%. Demands for more cash from universities are only going to grow and with the state already £800 billion in debt, the only way for tuition fees to go is up.
This article was published in the December 2009 edition of The Bus Magazine.
‘Top-up fees’ were first introduced in 2004 to deal with a funding crisis in higher education. Universities were demanding more money and they still are today. Universities claim they are struggling to find the cash to continue offering the range of courses and the number of places they want to. They’re even struggling to pay their staff. University lecturers recently went on strike in a dispute over pay.
But the problem is resurfacing once more. The president of Universities UK recently said “Universities will require further injections of resources, from whatever source, if they are to continue to provide the high quality student experience for which we are internationally renowned”. But with the taxpayer running out of money, there is only one source from which this money must come and that is tuition fees.
The introduction of tuition fees in 2004 prompted concerns that people would be put off by the cost of university and applications would fall. On the contrary, university applications hit another record high this summer and look like they’ll continue to go up. Even with fees, more students from low income families go to university in England than do in Scotland, despite the
fact that students no longer pay tuition fees there. So it seems the cost isn’t putting people off.
But there is the problem of debt. If most of us leave Sixth Form and go on to university, we can expect to leave higher education with a debt of around £15,000, and that is a conservative estimate. It is now a harsh reality for many young people in the UK that they must begin their working lives with massive debts to pay off. However, as much as we like to moan about the debt, we do reap the benefits. Nothing is free in life and the same goes for a good job. With a university degree, graduates are far more likely to get high -earning jobs and get bigger salaries. In a way, the debt you incur at university is an investment in your future.
Futures would not be so bright if we did abolish university tuition fees altogether. With university education free, many more young people would see it as a way to avoid working for another three years and we’d see more and more people going to university and getting degrees. Forget the government’s target of 50% of the population going to university; we would quite
easily exceed that. This has major implications for graduates.
Graduate job prospects are already shrinking. Graduates are being forced to apply for jobs in supermarkets because there are no graduate jobs available. And with more and more people earning degrees, the situation will get worse. Degrees will become less valuable and your three years at university will have gone to waste. Employers will start to asking more and more
often for their employees to have postgraduate degrees because they won’t be able to distinguish between those who don’t.
Somebody ultimately has to pay for university education and money doesn’t grow on trees. In an ideal world we’d turn the clock back 30 years to when people did go to university for free but we can’t. Back then, barely 10% of the population went to university; we’re now talking about 30 —40%. Demands for more cash from universities are only going to grow and with the state already £800 billion in debt, the only way for tuition fees to go is up.
This article was published in the December 2009 edition of The Bus Magazine.
Tuesday, 12 January 2010
A terrible day for British democracy
Today has been a terrible day for British Democracy. Three incidents today show just how much this Labour Government (and to a certain extent the entire political establishment) has been willing to disregard our human rights in recent years.
The first is of course the decision to ban Islam4UK; a completely unjustified decision in my opinion. I have no doubt that somehow; Islam4UK will have links to Al-Qaeda or some affiliated terrorist organisation. Nor am I in any doubt that Anjem Choudary is one of the minority of British Muslims who would be happy to see yet more violence on the streets of Britain. But that does not mean we should make his organisation illegal. National security considerations aside, I do not believe the Home Secretary has provided nearly enough evidence to justify the decision to add Islam4UK to the list of proscribed organisations under the Terrorism Act 2000. Abhorrent and extreme as Islam4UK’s views may be, there should be a place in our democracy for the most radical and for the most extreme on both ends of the spectrum. I do not want to live in a country where any group that steps out of line from the establishment’s view of community cohesion is banned. A bad move indeed on the part of the Home Secretary and shame on the Tory frontbench for supporting him.
In the same category is another decision by the Home Office to keep in place the ban on American talk show host Mike Savage entering Britain. Mr Savage is a very controversial individual whose views are probably as extreme as those of Anjem Choudary, although Savage is accused of being offensive towards Muslims, not calling for the imposition of Sharia law. The issue was raised today in the House of Lords by UKIP leader Lord Pearson. I do not in any way agree with Mr Savage (just as I don’t agree with Islam4UK), indeed if Mr Savage had his way I’d probably be dead, but he has every right to say what he wants to and his conservative beliefs should not prevent him from being admitted in to the UK. The so-called excuse is that Mr Savage’s presence in the UK could cause a violent back-lash, why should we allow those that would bring violence in to our politics to hold freedom of speech in this country to ransom? This is yet another sorry episode in British politics and a victory for those that use the threat of violence to stifle free speech.
The third attack on freedom in Britain today came not from the Home Secretary but in the courts. Legal history was made in England and Wales today as a criminal trial took place without a jury, the first since the abolition of the Star Chamber 350 years ago. In a step back in time that makes a mockery of our calls for human rights on the international stage, an English court-room saw four defendants face trial without a jury – completely shocking. Under provisions introduced by this Labour government, one of the very basic principles of our legal system, that a defendant should be trialled by a jury of his peers, has been eroded. Paul Mendle QC got it exactly right today when he said: “Some principles of justice are beyond price. Trial by your peers is one of them.” A fact this government seems to be ignoring.
We should not accept the slow erosion of basic principles of human rights that have underpinned the constitution of this country for centuries. By accepting these attacks on our civil liberties, we wave the white flag of surrender to the very people the government claims to be stopping. Today has been a truly terrible day.
The first is of course the decision to ban Islam4UK; a completely unjustified decision in my opinion. I have no doubt that somehow; Islam4UK will have links to Al-Qaeda or some affiliated terrorist organisation. Nor am I in any doubt that Anjem Choudary is one of the minority of British Muslims who would be happy to see yet more violence on the streets of Britain. But that does not mean we should make his organisation illegal. National security considerations aside, I do not believe the Home Secretary has provided nearly enough evidence to justify the decision to add Islam4UK to the list of proscribed organisations under the Terrorism Act 2000. Abhorrent and extreme as Islam4UK’s views may be, there should be a place in our democracy for the most radical and for the most extreme on both ends of the spectrum. I do not want to live in a country where any group that steps out of line from the establishment’s view of community cohesion is banned. A bad move indeed on the part of the Home Secretary and shame on the Tory frontbench for supporting him.
In the same category is another decision by the Home Office to keep in place the ban on American talk show host Mike Savage entering Britain. Mr Savage is a very controversial individual whose views are probably as extreme as those of Anjem Choudary, although Savage is accused of being offensive towards Muslims, not calling for the imposition of Sharia law. The issue was raised today in the House of Lords by UKIP leader Lord Pearson. I do not in any way agree with Mr Savage (just as I don’t agree with Islam4UK), indeed if Mr Savage had his way I’d probably be dead, but he has every right to say what he wants to and his conservative beliefs should not prevent him from being admitted in to the UK. The so-called excuse is that Mr Savage’s presence in the UK could cause a violent back-lash, why should we allow those that would bring violence in to our politics to hold freedom of speech in this country to ransom? This is yet another sorry episode in British politics and a victory for those that use the threat of violence to stifle free speech.
The third attack on freedom in Britain today came not from the Home Secretary but in the courts. Legal history was made in England and Wales today as a criminal trial took place without a jury, the first since the abolition of the Star Chamber 350 years ago. In a step back in time that makes a mockery of our calls for human rights on the international stage, an English court-room saw four defendants face trial without a jury – completely shocking. Under provisions introduced by this Labour government, one of the very basic principles of our legal system, that a defendant should be trialled by a jury of his peers, has been eroded. Paul Mendle QC got it exactly right today when he said: “Some principles of justice are beyond price. Trial by your peers is one of them.” A fact this government seems to be ignoring.
We should not accept the slow erosion of basic principles of human rights that have underpinned the constitution of this country for centuries. By accepting these attacks on our civil liberties, we wave the white flag of surrender to the very people the government claims to be stopping. Today has been a truly terrible day.
Monday, 11 January 2010
Mr Flip-flop?
If we ever needed confirmation that the Liberal Democrats will say whatever they feel like saying depending on the mood they're in (most of us didn't need the confirmation) then we got it today. Nick Clegg changed his mind again today over his spending plans promising to shelve many of his party's top spending pledges.At the Lib Dem conference last year, we were promised 'savage cuts' from the Lib Dems; they were dumping their pledge to abolish university tuition fees which won them many votes at the last election in student-dominated seats (including my own constituency). But amidst the back-lash, Nick Clegg back-tracked and promised he was still committed to abolishing tuition fees. But then today we hear that he isn't committed to that after all.
However the reality is, it doesn't matter what Mr Clegg thinks, says or promises he is going to do because he will not form the next government. There is very little chance that Liberal Democrat policies will inform the legislative programme after the general election.
But the one thing he should be telling us, but he won't, is what he'll do in a Hung Parliament. He avoided the question completely today despite the fact that polls show he could be called upon to be the king-maker after May.
Please do us a favour Mr Clegg, stop flip-flopping and tell us something we really want to know.
Sunday, 10 January 2010
Council tax rise funding council booze?
I was concerned to read in today's Sunday Sun that Newcastle City Council has spent nearly £25,000 on wine since 2008. At a time when the City Council is going ahead with job cuts across Council services, this is shameful. What's more, this week the City Council announced that it would hit residents hard with a 1.5% increase in Council tax. This represents on average 29p increase in weekly Council tax bills for city residents; it may not seem a lot but in these difficult times, Newcastle City Council should to the right thing and follow the lead of some Tory Councils and freeze Council tax this year.
When a Council is spending £25,000 on booze at the same time as increasing council tax for residents, it obviously has its priorities in the wrong order.
When a Council is spending £25,000 on booze at the same time as increasing council tax for residents, it obviously has its priorities in the wrong order.
Thursday, 7 January 2010
Archbishop Carey gets it right on immigration
Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, was entirely right yesterday when he called for limits on immigration to the UK. Showing just how much of a better Primate he was than our current Archbishop, Lord Carey has joined a cross-party group of MPs and Peers in calling for a balance migration policy; one advocated for some time by the pressure group Migration Watch.
Lord Carey's contention is that we need to limit net migration levels now in order to prevent the UK's population reaching 70 million which the Office of National Statistics predicts could occur by 2033.
A balanced migration system is not one which says let's lock the door and throw away the key; such a policy, advocated by the British National Party and others, would cause serious damage to the British economy. It remains a fact that migrants have contributed enormously to the British economy over the past 50 years and we will still require them to do so in years to come as our population suffers from a natural decrease. But the stream of migration cannot carry on at current levels. The UK cannot afford to house, feed, educate and provide health care for 70 million people; our resources are already stretched as it is. A balanced migration policy, which balances immigration against emigration is by far the best approach.
Lord Carey also spoke some wise words about the need for migrants to accept the values of this country. I agree with him entirely.
As previous posts on this blog will show, I am a robust defender of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I do not, as some people do, believe that when people come here they should be forced to discard their own religions, cultures and beliefs or practice them in secret. I'm quite happy for Muslims to build mosques (with minarets if they so wish), Jews to eat Kosher food and Sikhs to wear their turbans.
But equally their must be an acceptance amongst migrant communities that Britain is a Christian country, with laws based on Judeo-Christian principles and that our practices, values and culture will continue to be based on our Christian tradition. We should not be ashamed of our Christian heritage, Judeo-Christian values have informed many of the best things in British society; we should celebrate it far more. So should immigrants. I do not see any reason why immigrants cannot retain their own identities, cultures and religions whilst not embracing our history, our language and our traditions.
Archbishop Carey got it exactly right yesterday, more politicians should take note.
Lord Carey's contention is that we need to limit net migration levels now in order to prevent the UK's population reaching 70 million which the Office of National Statistics predicts could occur by 2033.
A balanced migration system is not one which says let's lock the door and throw away the key; such a policy, advocated by the British National Party and others, would cause serious damage to the British economy. It remains a fact that migrants have contributed enormously to the British economy over the past 50 years and we will still require them to do so in years to come as our population suffers from a natural decrease. But the stream of migration cannot carry on at current levels. The UK cannot afford to house, feed, educate and provide health care for 70 million people; our resources are already stretched as it is. A balanced migration policy, which balances immigration against emigration is by far the best approach.
Lord Carey also spoke some wise words about the need for migrants to accept the values of this country. I agree with him entirely.
As previous posts on this blog will show, I am a robust defender of freedom of speech and freedom of religion. I do not, as some people do, believe that when people come here they should be forced to discard their own religions, cultures and beliefs or practice them in secret. I'm quite happy for Muslims to build mosques (with minarets if they so wish), Jews to eat Kosher food and Sikhs to wear their turbans.
But equally their must be an acceptance amongst migrant communities that Britain is a Christian country, with laws based on Judeo-Christian principles and that our practices, values and culture will continue to be based on our Christian tradition. We should not be ashamed of our Christian heritage, Judeo-Christian values have informed many of the best things in British society; we should celebrate it far more. So should immigrants. I do not see any reason why immigrants cannot retain their own identities, cultures and religions whilst not embracing our history, our language and our traditions.
Archbishop Carey got it exactly right yesterday, more politicians should take note.
Wednesday, 6 January 2010
Financial education needs to start with this Government
Ed Balls announced on Monday that from the age of five, all children in the UK will be taught about managing finance. By the time they reach secondary school, students will learn about how to manage bank accounts and also be taught about debt. However if anybody needs education about debt and finance, it's Mr Balls himself and the rest of this sorry government.
On a serious note though, financial education in school does sound like a good plan if it's delivered correctly. It should not go down the route that current provision of political education in schools has gone down, being patchy and poorly delivered on the whole.
But yesterday we saw yet another example of this government's complete inability to deal with the nation's economic problems. Parliament debated the grandly titled 'Fiscal Responsibility Bill' which will make it a legal requirement for the government to halve the public deficit by 2013/2014. A laudable aim indeed, but one which we don't need a 'Fiscal Responsibility Bill' to achieve and one which we will never achieve under this Labour government. The fact is that Alistair Darling and his gang are completely blind to the need to sort out the deficit now. The Fiscal Responsibility Bill was unveiled in the Queen's Speech in November and heralded by Gordon Brown as this great Bill that will restore stability to the public purse. Then a few weeks later, the Chancellor delivers his Pre-Budget Report and there's not a single announcement about how this government is going to sort out our debt crisis, indeed he announced public spending would rise still further.
The Fiscal Responsibility Bill just typifies Labour's obsession with legislating for pointless reasons.
On a serious note though, financial education in school does sound like a good plan if it's delivered correctly. It should not go down the route that current provision of political education in schools has gone down, being patchy and poorly delivered on the whole.
But yesterday we saw yet another example of this government's complete inability to deal with the nation's economic problems. Parliament debated the grandly titled 'Fiscal Responsibility Bill' which will make it a legal requirement for the government to halve the public deficit by 2013/2014. A laudable aim indeed, but one which we don't need a 'Fiscal Responsibility Bill' to achieve and one which we will never achieve under this Labour government. The fact is that Alistair Darling and his gang are completely blind to the need to sort out the deficit now. The Fiscal Responsibility Bill was unveiled in the Queen's Speech in November and heralded by Gordon Brown as this great Bill that will restore stability to the public purse. Then a few weeks later, the Chancellor delivers his Pre-Budget Report and there's not a single announcement about how this government is going to sort out our debt crisis, indeed he announced public spending would rise still further.
The Fiscal Responsibility Bill just typifies Labour's obsession with legislating for pointless reasons.
Monday, 4 January 2010
Islam4UK must be allowed to march through Wootton Bassett
The plan by Islam4UK to march through Wootton Bassett is absolutely disgusting. Wootton Bassett has almost become a national memorial for the brave men and women, fighting on the front line in Afghanistan who are dying so I can do things like write this blog; the idea that British Citizens would want to march through that town in the manner they plan to fills me with anger. However their march must be allowed to go ahead.
I do not know much about Islam4UK but I understand them to be an Islamo-fascist organisation, hell-bent on turning the UK in to an Islamic state with Shariah law. They even want to turn Buckingham Palace in to a Mosque (perish the thought). (Link to their website here)
The Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, has backed a ban on the march stating that he felt 'revulsion' at the thought of the march. I share Mr Johnson's revulsion. But it is exactly because these people repulse us that we should allow them to speak and to march. As long as they are peaceful they have every right to gather in Wootton Bassett and process in the same way that many British citizens gather in Wootton Bassett to honour our war dead. There may come a day when the tide of British opinion turns against you and your views are the views people find repulsive - will you be so much in favour of a ban then? Restricting freedom of speech is seldom acceptable in my opinion; whether it's the BNP, Islam4UK, Gordon Brown or my grandmother - everyone has a right to express their views.
I do not want to live in a country when the majority can silence the minority and the only views we hear are those that conform to to the standards of acceptability. I want to be able to hear the nonsense of Islam4UK so I can challenge them and see how wrong they are. If the Islam4UK march is banned in Wootton Bassett, British democracy will be worse off.
I do not know much about Islam4UK but I understand them to be an Islamo-fascist organisation, hell-bent on turning the UK in to an Islamic state with Shariah law. They even want to turn Buckingham Palace in to a Mosque (perish the thought). (Link to their website here)
The Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, has backed a ban on the march stating that he felt 'revulsion' at the thought of the march. I share Mr Johnson's revulsion. But it is exactly because these people repulse us that we should allow them to speak and to march. As long as they are peaceful they have every right to gather in Wootton Bassett and process in the same way that many British citizens gather in Wootton Bassett to honour our war dead. There may come a day when the tide of British opinion turns against you and your views are the views people find repulsive - will you be so much in favour of a ban then? Restricting freedom of speech is seldom acceptable in my opinion; whether it's the BNP, Islam4UK, Gordon Brown or my grandmother - everyone has a right to express their views.
I do not want to live in a country when the majority can silence the minority and the only views we hear are those that conform to to the standards of acceptability. I want to be able to hear the nonsense of Islam4UK so I can challenge them and see how wrong they are. If the Islam4UK march is banned in Wootton Bassett, British democracy will be worse off.
Saturday, 2 January 2010
Ten tough choices for 2010
2010 is not only (hopefully) going to be the Year for Change we so desperately need in this country but it is inevitable going to be the year of cuts. Even the Labour Party are now reconciled to the fact that we need drastic cuts in public spending (although you wouldn't think it from the Pre-Budget Report). Today I outline ten cuts I would make to public spending in the next year.
1. Increase VAT to 20%
This is something that has been floated around in the media a lot recently and we know that the government considered raising VAT in the last budget. Although a regressive tax that will affect everyone, it is guaranteed to generate extra government revenue and will make up for the cost of the VAT cut. If announced in this year’s budget but not introduced until 2011, spending on the high-street will increase in the next twelve months as people try to avoid the extra costs, thus helping the recovery.
2. Keep the 50p tax rate for the duration of the next Parliament
The creation of the 50p tax rate is a tax on aspiration and shows just how much Labour is in the process of retreating to its old ways but it is here to stay (for the moment at least). The revenue it will raise will be needed to cut public spending and cut the deficit so the 50p tax rate should remain for the duration of the next Parliament when it should be at the top of the list for tax cuts.
3. Freeze public sector pay
I have already written about the need for the public sector to share the burden of post-recession cuts and there should therefore be a public sector pay freeze for the next two years – causing a real-term cut in pay.
4. Cut the pay of all public sector employees earning over £100,000
Freezing public pay doesn’t go far enough is kerbing the excessively high pay of some people in the public sector. Local authority Chief Executives and those in the higher echelons of the civil service must not simply accept a pay freeze but must accept a 10% cut in pay in the next financial year and a pay freeze the year after. This does not simply extend to civil servants, executives in Royal Mail (which is a publicly owned company), senior NHS Doctors (some of whom are earning in excess of £150,000) and the heads of quangos should also be included in any pay cuts/freezes.
5. Politician’s must show leadership in accepting more modest salaries
Politicians cannot talk about cutting public sector pay whilst enjoying salary increases themselves. Like the pay of those in the higher pay grades, MPs and ministers should all suffer a 10% fall in pay in the 2010-2011 financial year and a freeze the year after. This would cause an MP’s salary to fall from £64,766 a year to £58,289. The same applies to the additional salaries some MPs get for being ministers. Politicians are not the highest paid individuals in the public sector but we should be able to expect our politicians to show leadership in these difficult times.
6. Freeze all forms of state welfare
I suggest below some benefits that should be abolished but those that remain should be frozen just like public sector pay. This should apply to benefits such as Job Seeker’s Allowance, Disability Benefit and Incapacity Benefit and the State Pension. With inflation currently at 1.9%, this would mean a £7 fall in Job Seeker’s Allowance and an £11 fall in the weekly state pension.
7. Abolish Child Trust Funds and Child Benefit
Universal benefits such as the Child Trust Fund and Child Benefit are indefensible in times of economic hardship. Setting up a Trust Fund of £250 for every child when they are born and a second £250 when each child is 7 is completely unnecessary. Additionally, the £20 a week Child Benefit is made regardless of income so a single mother struggling to bring up a family gets the same Child Benefit as a millionaire – that is unfair. Both should be abolished. The shortfalls for the poorest families can be made up in Child Tax Credits which are based on income.
8. Means test winter fuel payments, free bus passes and free television licences
Older people have done very well out of the boom years and Labour’s public spending splurge but many have received benefits they do not need or deserve. Like the Child Trust Funds and Child Benefit, winter fuel payments, free bus passes and the free TV license are blind to the recipient’s financial circumstances. I am not convinced that abolishing these payments completely would be a good thing, ‘fuel poverty’ (the government’s name for people being cold in their houses) is a big problem for those with the lowest incomes. But many older people don’t spend their fuel payment on fuel and others could afford to pay a concessionary fare on the buses – so only those on the lowest incomes should receive these benefits.
9. Cut the cost of politics by reducing the number of MPs and ending government funding of politics
It costs us £500 million each year to run Parliament and much more for the wider cost of running politics in the UK. Many people don’t realise but the government spends millions of pounds a year on funding the Trade Unions and other charities and organisations which exist for purely political purposes. The state should not fund any sort of political activity – whether they are Trade Unions or pressure groups and all funding for these sorts of bodies should end; if such organisations cannot find the cash to run themselves then they obviously don’t have enough support and should consider their future. We should also cut the cost of politics by cutting the number of MPs by 10%, the House of Commons is far too big, and also cutting the number of ministers by a third.
10. Departmental spending cuts of at least 10% in ALL Departments
I have explained some specific projects I would scrap altogether but the government itself has already proposed 7% cuts across the board in Departmental budgets and to ensure we reduce the deficit these need to be at 10%. At the moment there can be no sacred cows, the Tories may have said they’ll protect the Health and International Aid budgets but these too must face the butcher’s knife. Cuts should start with wasteful bureaucracy, cutting unnecessary jobs and administration costs, but then we will have to turn to frontline services at some point. We can only avoid cutting frontline services if we hike up taxes to ridiculous levels – something we should avoid at all costs. This should include the grants to the devolved legislatures in Holyrood, Cardiff Bay and Stormont.
Some of these proposals were outlined in a report by the Tax Payer's Alliance in September 2009 entitled 'How to save £50 billion'.
1. Increase VAT to 20%
This is something that has been floated around in the media a lot recently and we know that the government considered raising VAT in the last budget. Although a regressive tax that will affect everyone, it is guaranteed to generate extra government revenue and will make up for the cost of the VAT cut. If announced in this year’s budget but not introduced until 2011, spending on the high-street will increase in the next twelve months as people try to avoid the extra costs, thus helping the recovery.
2. Keep the 50p tax rate for the duration of the next Parliament
The creation of the 50p tax rate is a tax on aspiration and shows just how much Labour is in the process of retreating to its old ways but it is here to stay (for the moment at least). The revenue it will raise will be needed to cut public spending and cut the deficit so the 50p tax rate should remain for the duration of the next Parliament when it should be at the top of the list for tax cuts.
3. Freeze public sector pay
I have already written about the need for the public sector to share the burden of post-recession cuts and there should therefore be a public sector pay freeze for the next two years – causing a real-term cut in pay.
4. Cut the pay of all public sector employees earning over £100,000
Freezing public pay doesn’t go far enough is kerbing the excessively high pay of some people in the public sector. Local authority Chief Executives and those in the higher echelons of the civil service must not simply accept a pay freeze but must accept a 10% cut in pay in the next financial year and a pay freeze the year after. This does not simply extend to civil servants, executives in Royal Mail (which is a publicly owned company), senior NHS Doctors (some of whom are earning in excess of £150,000) and the heads of quangos should also be included in any pay cuts/freezes.
5. Politician’s must show leadership in accepting more modest salaries
Politicians cannot talk about cutting public sector pay whilst enjoying salary increases themselves. Like the pay of those in the higher pay grades, MPs and ministers should all suffer a 10% fall in pay in the 2010-2011 financial year and a freeze the year after. This would cause an MP’s salary to fall from £64,766 a year to £58,289. The same applies to the additional salaries some MPs get for being ministers. Politicians are not the highest paid individuals in the public sector but we should be able to expect our politicians to show leadership in these difficult times.
6. Freeze all forms of state welfare
I suggest below some benefits that should be abolished but those that remain should be frozen just like public sector pay. This should apply to benefits such as Job Seeker’s Allowance, Disability Benefit and Incapacity Benefit and the State Pension. With inflation currently at 1.9%, this would mean a £7 fall in Job Seeker’s Allowance and an £11 fall in the weekly state pension.
7. Abolish Child Trust Funds and Child Benefit
Universal benefits such as the Child Trust Fund and Child Benefit are indefensible in times of economic hardship. Setting up a Trust Fund of £250 for every child when they are born and a second £250 when each child is 7 is completely unnecessary. Additionally, the £20 a week Child Benefit is made regardless of income so a single mother struggling to bring up a family gets the same Child Benefit as a millionaire – that is unfair. Both should be abolished. The shortfalls for the poorest families can be made up in Child Tax Credits which are based on income.
8. Means test winter fuel payments, free bus passes and free television licences
Older people have done very well out of the boom years and Labour’s public spending splurge but many have received benefits they do not need or deserve. Like the Child Trust Funds and Child Benefit, winter fuel payments, free bus passes and the free TV license are blind to the recipient’s financial circumstances. I am not convinced that abolishing these payments completely would be a good thing, ‘fuel poverty’ (the government’s name for people being cold in their houses) is a big problem for those with the lowest incomes. But many older people don’t spend their fuel payment on fuel and others could afford to pay a concessionary fare on the buses – so only those on the lowest incomes should receive these benefits.
9. Cut the cost of politics by reducing the number of MPs and ending government funding of politics
It costs us £500 million each year to run Parliament and much more for the wider cost of running politics in the UK. Many people don’t realise but the government spends millions of pounds a year on funding the Trade Unions and other charities and organisations which exist for purely political purposes. The state should not fund any sort of political activity – whether they are Trade Unions or pressure groups and all funding for these sorts of bodies should end; if such organisations cannot find the cash to run themselves then they obviously don’t have enough support and should consider their future. We should also cut the cost of politics by cutting the number of MPs by 10%, the House of Commons is far too big, and also cutting the number of ministers by a third.
10. Departmental spending cuts of at least 10% in ALL Departments
I have explained some specific projects I would scrap altogether but the government itself has already proposed 7% cuts across the board in Departmental budgets and to ensure we reduce the deficit these need to be at 10%. At the moment there can be no sacred cows, the Tories may have said they’ll protect the Health and International Aid budgets but these too must face the butcher’s knife. Cuts should start with wasteful bureaucracy, cutting unnecessary jobs and administration costs, but then we will have to turn to frontline services at some point. We can only avoid cutting frontline services if we hike up taxes to ridiculous levels – something we should avoid at all costs. This should include the grants to the devolved legislatures in Holyrood, Cardiff Bay and Stormont.
Some of these proposals were outlined in a report by the Tax Payer's Alliance in September 2009 entitled 'How to save £50 billion'.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
