When David Cameron coined the phrase “Big Society”, no one really seemed to know what he meant. But take a look at new-style Tory Councils and see how the Prime Minister was sign-posting a well thought-out, ideological intention to take government back to laissez-faire, sink or swim politics, where the state sits back and does the very bare minimum.
It is at local government level that Cameron’s cuts will be fought out. So expect to hear free-market buzz words like “outsourcing”, “privatisation”, “small government” and “consumer choice” as key parts of Cameron’s Conservative vision for municipal governance.
No wonder we’ve heard so much from John Redwood since the Conservatives formed their coalition with free-market zealots Nick Clegg and David Laws.
The ghost of Margaret Thatcher hovers still over her former Finchley constituency. Conservative controlled Barnet council contemptuously announced last summer that it would attempt the morally and economically unthinkable: slashing £15 million in costs, while keeping council tax down. It’s every Bullingdon club member’s dream.
Based on low-cost, budget airline business models, the likes of Barnet, or ‘easyCouncil’ as it is dubbed, brazenly charges extra for residents to jump to the front of the queue for planning consents. They have been inspired by Ryan Air charging extra for priority boarding and charging customers to use the lavatory while in flight.
Barnet is no isolated case. When Cameron-branded “compassionate Conservatives” won control of Hammersmith and Fulham council in 2006, their priority was to crack down on the homeless. With Dame Shirley Porter their apparent muse, they immediately sold off 12 homeless shelters to large property developers. When Crisis, the homeless charity, attempted to set up a homeless shelter locally, the council refused planning permission. Meanwhile, social housing tenants had fourfold rent rises.
In their first three months of administration, the charge for social care was increased to £12.50 an hour for disabled, mentally ill and elderly residents, who literally rely on care to survive. These ‘compassionate Conservatives’ wanted volunteers to do it instead and employed debt-collection agencies for non-payment, resulting in the most vulnerable and marginalised facing the anxiety of debt, often for the first time in their lives.
While Utopian thinking on public spending is irresponsible at a time when the nation’s finances need to be rebalanced, over 50 independent economists are on record as saying that they agree with Labour’s Ed Balls and Alistair Darling, that a double-dip recession could be triggered if cuts are too drastic and too soon. The new Labour leader of Ealing council, Julian Bell, warned last month that: “people must understand there will be difficult times ahead.” But the warning was balanced by Bell’s explanation that: “we’re already worried that there will be too many cuts too soon.”
Certainly, while the nation’s body politic recovers from global-banking-crisis-induced recession, the jury is still out as to how deep to cut and how soon. Even the Deputy Prime Minister is now faltering, if you believe his comments in the Observer, at odds with Cameron’s interview in the same day’s Sunday Times. Though Clegg spoke of “savage cuts” during the election campaign, as ever the Lib Dems want it all ways: to sit at the Conservatives’ cabinet table, but to pander to their progressive supporters through the media.
Labour people fret over cuts, how they’ll affect our lives and the lives of others through public services and jobs. Cameron’s crowd sleep safe in the knowledge that those with private wealth own their homes, can pay for health insurance and public schooling; can afford private care if disabled or ill and enjoy their own pensions.
They live, as Alan Clarke memorably explained, off the interest on the interest. They cut with impunity because they don’t feel the pain.
Amanda Ramsay was a cabinet member on Merton council
Tags: Amanda Ramsay, councils, cuts, Labour, local government
Amanda ought to be standing for leader of the Party, she knows how to put the point across and no mistake. Well done.
What spectacular nonsense!
I particularly enjoyed this bit:
The ghost of Margaret Thatcher hovers still over her former Finchley constituency. Conservative controlled Barnet council contemptuously announced last summer that it would attempt the morally and economically unthinkable: slashing £15 million in costs, while keeping council tax down. It’s every Bullingdon club member’s dream.
Amanda, I can categorically assure you that cost-control in local councils is very far from being the primary interest of Bullingdon Club members.
More seriously, how can anyone, let alone a former local authority cabinet member, think that getting value for money in the public sector is ‘contemptuous’ or ‘morally unthinkable’.
Is this really the level of debate Labour is heading for?
A very fine article Amanda and one that spells out the reality of Cameron’s so call caring conservatism. People will face a bleak time from national cuts and deep cuts from local Tory councils. The concept this is all done for efficiency is bogus and a cover story to deflect from the pain the cuts will cause.
The echoes of Thatcher are no longer echoes as David Cameron seeks to emulate his hero. She was a reckless leader who put self interest of the rich above that of society. Sounds familiar well it is because Cameron is all set to do the same.
Amanda’s article spells out the suffering that those who are young, sick or old will suffer as a direct result. Many are suffering now and I do not think the horror that awaits the public has yet to dawn on people. Yet it will and Cameron is set to become more hated than Thatcher. It may explain his deliberate desire to rig the Commons and the Lords to ensure his view and only his view is heard.
Despite all the guff that it’s about electoral reform it will not wash, 55% for removal for a vote of no confidence, over a 100 news pro coalition Lords and the boundary changes to ensure Labour MPs lose their chance of a majority. We are not just facing and awful Tory Lib Dem government we are also facing the most dictatorial government in many decades.
In a few short months the call for a new election will grow much louder and who can blame them. David Cameron won no mandate to lead the nation. He failed to win the election. If it was not for Nick Clegg betraying his party and the people who voted for him. Who largely voted to keep the Tories out? Then Cameron would never be in place.
Labour is the peoples only hope now and they are needed more than ever…
Gary – Labour didn`t win the election either and the Conservatives gained more votes and the same % as Labour did in 2005. You were happy to have a Labour government then, so be consistent please now.
Regarding boundary changes – they hugely favour Labour at the moment. Consider this the Conservatives in 1997 gained 30-31% of the vote and 165 MP’s. Labour in 2010 gained only 29% (barely better than Foot – should I “joke” about assassinating him?) but had over 250MP’s. The system is already biased in your favour. In 2005 you had a 60 seat majority with the same share of the vote as Cameron has now.
If you don`t like the cuts the National Coalition Government is doing then where are your suggestions for cuts. Remember Labour wanted legislation to half the deficit in 4 years – how would you follow that Labour party policy commitment?
What everyone is forgetting is that the cuts are necessary but not yet, Labour had plans for doing it when the world economic recovery kicks in. Cameron and Co are just using the economic state of the world to blame Labour and to take the heat off themselves. How amusing to watch the nasty party trying to be so sweet and so kind so as to cover up the bully boys that they are. And as for May,is in the right job for such a bully too!
Carole – So, in essence, what you are saying is that (to use Amanda’s words), rather than the coalition’s ideological intention to take government back to laissez-faire, sink or swim politics, where the state sits back and does the very bare minimum starting now, Labour’s plans were to take government back to laissez-faire, sink or swim politics, where the state sits back and does the very bare minimum, starting in a couple of years’ time.
And this minor difference of timing makes one party the ‘nasty party’ comprising ‘bully boys’, and the other progressive and caring.
Right, I think I understand it now.
Richard Nabavi
How very childish your reply is! No that is not what I was saying and if you knew Darling’s policy you would understand instead of making Mr Grumpy outbursts. Understand?
Richard – despite your comment that this piece is “nonsense”, maybe you should check your facts first as the cuts resulted in Barnet Council receiving a High Court injunction last September 09, to prevent the council taking further steps to axe residential wardens in sheltered housing, until further notice. Maybe you’d care to read about it in The Times.
http://www.time-series.co.uk/news/4631888.Barnet_served_High_Court_injunction_over_warden_cuts