“We all know that the easiest thing in the world is for an opposition party to blithely talk about all the efficiency savings we will make in government: how we will streamline public spending […] with a few well-chosen cuts that miraculously deliver substantial savings without harming public service delivery at all.” – David Cameron, 2008
“The Conservatives claim that the spending cuts can, in effect, be rendered painless by efficiency savings that they say their advisers have identified.” – Institute for Fiscal Studies, 2010
The Tories like to boast of their proposal for a £12 billion cut to National Insurance. The cost of the cut, so they claim, is to be met by painless ‘efficiency savings’: “no-one will be worse off” says Osborne; “no plan to cut jobs” says Hammond; “no cuts to frontline services” says Cameron.
Many beg to differ. The economist Howard Reed has calculated that the planned spending reductions could lead to 75,000 job losses, fifty-eight leading economists say that the NI cut would “lead directly to job losses and indirectly to further falls in spending through the standard multiplier process”, whilst the Chairman of Standard Life recently argued that the Tory proposals would “damage the services people rely on in times such as these”. It has also been suggested that if the Conservatives win tomorrow they will have to resort to a VAT rise to fund the NI cut – lowering a progressive tax by increasing a highly regressive one; in relative terms, taking from the poor and giving to the rich. Painless cuts will not suffice. As Cameron himself put it in 2008, promises of ‘sweeping savings’ and ‘efficiency drives’ are “the oldest trick in the book”.
Over the past months, Tory Stories has revealed example after example of Tories in local government pulling that very trick. The pattern is well established: vague electoral pledges to remove ‘frills’ and ‘waste’ give way to savage cuts to essential services, often accompanied by a remarkably casual approach to truly unnecessary spending:
Nottinghamshire Conservatives last year promised ‘efficiencies’ under a ‘business administration’ that would “make sure that people are cared for”. They have gone on to sell off thirteen residential homes, increase charges for meals-on-wheels and home care, and cut community transport, welfare rights advice and extra-curricular activities, all whilst hiring a new council spin doctor, redecorating council offices and cutting top band tax by some £100/year.
Surrey Conservatives promised to ‘pursue efficiencies’ whilst concentrating on ‘quality of life’. Yet they have drastically increased spending on publicity (by £1.1 million in 2007-8 alone), frozen the wages of the lowest paid council staff and, in pursuit of ‘maximum savings’, will shortly discontinue a popular school bus scheme. The former CEO last year attacked the council’s “obsession with the control of inputs and resources […] mistaken for a focus on efficiency” and described councillors’ attitude as “private sector good – public sector, bad”.
Hammersmith & Fulham Conservatives used their 2006 manifesto to stress their ‘compassionate’ credentials, pledging ‘value for money services’, cuts to ‘bloated, unnecessary bureaucracy’ and an explicit promise not to charge for home care. On taking control, ‘Cameron’s favourite council’ promptly introduced eye-watering charges for home care, meals-on-wheels and childcare, sold off twelve homeless shelters, closed down youth clubs, community centres and a school and turned a public park into a private polo field.
Westminster Conservatives have declared war on ‘red tape’, promising to ‘become even more efficient’ and ‘retain and improve services rather than cut indiscriminately’. These pledges sit uncomfortably alongside the council’s record of cutting council housing maintenance, 500 council jobs (including neighbourhood policing) and support for voluntary groups, all whilst lavishing millions on a council tax freeze, a £3 million spin budget, a £1 million council website, ‘hospitality’ costs and bonuses for top officials.
Barnet Conservatives last year unveiled its ‘easyCouncil’ strategy. The savage cuts to almost every area of council provision have been presented in the language of ‘targeted intervention’, ‘no-frills’, ‘cheap and cheerful’ ‘flexible’, ‘responsive’, ‘a relentless drive for efficiency’ and ‘consumer choice’. The rhetoric is new and painless, but the policies are not: service cuts for the vulnerable and tax cuts for the rich.
No politician speaks this language of ‘efficiencies’, ‘frills’ and ‘targeted intervention’ better than David Cameron, whose own atavistic priorities fit seamlessly into the above pattern. It all amounts to a slight of hand, obfuscating the rank transfer of goods and services from the poor to the rich. It is the vulnerable who benefit the least from council tax cuts but depend the most on the home care, youth clubs and bus services so often culled to fund them. In the same measure, it is the vulnerable who will benefit the least from Cameron’s inheritance tax cut, marriage tax break and National Insurance cut but depend the most on the public services due to be offloaded onto the voluntary sector in the name of the ‘Big Society’. As Cameron so accurately put it to his party’s councillors in 2007: “You demonstrate Conservative government – your values, your achievements, represent our party in action.”
