The Chancellor will set out a framework for the cuts, telling MPs how the Treasury will draw up a "once-in-a-generation" spending review this autumn.
Sign up to receive this daily email by 9am every morning.
The Chancellor will set out a framework for the “painful” cuts announced by the prime minister yesterday, telling MPs how the Treasury will draw up a “once-in-a-generation” spending review this autumn – which is expected to slash as much as £60 billion from annual expenditure. The Standard reports that Mr Osborne and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander: “Will announce the establishment of a so-called ‘star chamber’ of ministerial and civil service heavyweights before which departmental ministers will be required to justify their budgets. Ministers could be asked to consider whether services currently provided by their departments could be better supplied by the private or voluntary sectors. They will be questioned about their methods of delivery and challenged to find ways of ‘doing more for less’… In a bid to win broader consent for cuts which could total almost one-tenth of state spending, members of the public, charities and other interested parties are to be invited to give their views ahead of the spending review on where money could be saved.”
The Times adds: “Mr Osborne will use a Commons appearance today to hint at how he sees the public services of such a straitened future being delivered… He wants unprecedented engagement from trade unions, charities, other groups and individuals… The spending review will be coupled with a re-evaluation of the role of government — what it should and should not provide, how to improve the quality of key areas while cutting spending elsewhere… The exercise will draw on the experiences of other countries such as Canada that oversaw a swift and successful deficit-reduction plan in the early 1990s. The Government there eliminated or cut public spending on business subsidies, transport, agriculture and energy as it retreated into a role that concentrated on policy development and regulation.”
The deputy prime minister has signalled a climbdown over plans in the Coalition Agreement for a 55 per cent threshhold for dissolving parliament. The Times reports that: “MPs are likely to retain the right to dissolve Parliament and trigger an election if more than half the Commons loses confidence in the Government… Last month David Cameron and Mr Clegg announced that they were ending the prime minister’s historic right to call an election at a time of their choosing, introducing a new law requiring the consent of 55 per cent of MPs before a dissolution… MPs voiced concerns about the possibility of a ‘zombie’ government that has the support of just over 45 per cent of the House and clings to office but is unable to pass legislation.” The Liberal Democrat leader reiterated to the Commons yesterday that a simple majority would still be able to bring down a government through a vote of no confidence, as he had insisted in his speech on ‘new politics’ on May 19, reported by Left Foot Forward. The Times, however, cautions that: “One issue yet to be resolved is whether the 55 per cent threshold — which prevents just one party in the coalition pulling out and forcing a ballot — would apply to the next Parliament.” The Guardian has more on Mr Clegg’s political reform package, which include a draft bill on an elected upper house by the end of the year; a constituency boundary review to reduce the number of MPs; plans to make voter registration compulsory by 2015; a referendum on extra powers for the Welsh Assembly early next year; and abandoning Tory plans for ‘unelected’ prime ministers to be compelled to seek a mandate within six months of taking power.
The health secretary will today announce that hospitals will be held responsible for patients’ health and well-being for up to a month after they are discharged. The Telegraph reports that Andrew Lansley, in his first major speech since the election, will unveil the scheme, which “forms a central part of a new ‘payment by results’ system to be introduced by the Government to improve standards in the NHS”, with health authorities being “penalised financially if patients have to be readmitted within 30 days because their conditions were not treated properly”. The report adds that: “The move – part of a wider drive to ensure patients treated at home receive adequate care – means that hospital doctors and nurses will have to monitor patients once they have left hospital wards and ensure that treatment is not stopped too early.” Mr Lansley will also pledge to improve survival rates for diseases such as cancer; he will say: “We need change… We need to set the service free to deliver high-quality care, based on evidence of what works. Accountable for results. Accountable to informed and engaged patients. Focused on what matters to patients – cleanliness, safety and positive patient experience.”
The shadow health secretary, meanwhile, has attacked New Labour’s “elitist” style of leadership in a last-ditch attempt to win enough nominations to progress to the next stage of the Labour leadership contest. The Independent reports that Andy Burnham, in the first major hustings event of the campaign, “went further than before in distancing himself from the ‘top-down’ approach of Tony Blair and Mr Brown,” and said that the power wielded by Lord Mandelson, “created the impression that the elite was running the country. We must have a Labour Party that involves everyone.” Ed Miliband also said Lord Mandelson wouldn’t have a place in his shadow cabinet, while David Miliband defended Labour’s achievements: “There are plenty of people who want to trash our record. We should not fall for the Tory claptrap that we left Britain broke and broken.” And Diane Abbott said: “My idea has always been ‘go for it’ and even if you don’t get there, you will have made it easier for other people like you to come afterwards.” The Mail reports that Ed Balls “has been compared to maverick right-wing MP Enoch Powell after calling for immigration to be drastically restricted”, with education secretary Michael Gove saying he had managed to “outflank” the Tory leader to the right on both immigration and Euroscepticism: “Something not done since Enoch Powell was in this House.” While John McDonnell has been criticised for joking about his desire to go back in time and “assassinate” Margaret Thatcher, reported by the Express, Mail, Sun and Telegraph.
And the Financial Times reports British Airways chief executive Willie Walsh’s warning to strikers that he would hold out against industrial action “for as long as it takes”. The FT reports that: “In a sign of BA’s determination to break the Unite union’s stranglehold on the loss-making airline, Mr Walsh told a group of airline industry leaders: ‘I don’t think we’ve been brave enough in the past to stand up and say ‘No’.’ His comments came as flight attendants staged a third round of five-day strikes. Their action is due to end on Wednesday but the union may ballot cabin crew on further action if no agreement is reached in the dispute.” It adds: “The union claims an agreement in principle has been reached over the cost-cutting proposals that sparked the dispute, but says the removal of employees’ travel concessions and BA’s refusal to reinstate sacked and suspended workers is blocking a deal.”
13 Responses to “Politics Summary: Tuesday, June 8th”
Paige Goff
Politics Summary: Tuesday, June 8th | Left Foot Forward: The Chancellor will set out a framewor… http://bit.ly/aGDvHa http://bit.ly/NTnuK
Mr. Sensible
It is good to see that the coalition’s now planning to U turn over its proposals on the 55% supermajority (the stitch up law, I call it) and anonymity in rape cases.
But on the issues of political reform, there’s a lot of interesting things in there.
I have always been opposed, and remain opposed to an elected second chamber for reasons which I have outlined before.
On the issue of making registration compulsory by 2015, this is I think the case already; as I understand it, if you don’t register you can’t vote, your credit rating is marked down and you can be fined. In my view, a better idea with regard to registration would be to introduce a system of rolling registration, I.E you register once, but then only register again if details change.
Elsewhere, a referendum on greater powers for the Welsh Assembly is sensible, as is scrapping the idea that a new prime minister should face an election within 6 months; this is not a Presidential system, for goodness sake. As for reducing the number of MPs, this is blatant gerrymandering, and in terms of ‘cutting the cost of politics’ is actually a false economy. This is because those MPs who were left will have a larger population to deal with, and thus in time we will be calling for them to have more allowances, such as being allowed to employ more staff.
And as for Lansley’s proposals on the NHS. What is this? This idea sounds very much like a target; something he didn’t like; I believe he said that ‘this is the beginning of the end for New Labour’s targets.’ The fact is, in a NATIONAL Health Service targets are an important part of accountability. Whilst professionals might well know a lot about their subject, they have to be accountable for their actions. And there’s a lot of talk about postcode lotteries, but the truth is the coalition’s proposals will result in more of that, not less.
And on the big issue of the deficit. Cameron and Osborne are just plain wrong, as even the Daily Torygraph was forced to admit yesterday. And even if they were right, it is no use the coalition saying that and then announcing all these proposals like academies, like the Married Couples Allowance and like the dubious proposals on Income Tax. If we cannot afford to keep public services going, we cannot afford all that.
So, Mr Osborne is asking what the public think. Well, where do we start? My message to Mr Osborne is this:
Get your story straight.
1 minute, you tell us that the deficit is much worse than we first thought, but then your government is announcing all these spending proposals. First off, the incredibly regressive Married Couples Allowance, which we know is going to cost the Exchequer £500 million a year. Next, there’s the academies and Free Schools, the cost of which is as yet unknown, about which there’s been much coverage, and in spite of a fact that a similar school failed in Michael Gove’s own constituency, and in spite of the fact that there are falling roles across the country as it is. Next, there’s the ‘Pupil Premium.’ I’m not quite sure what to make of the actual issue at stake, however, Michael Gove has said that the money will come from outside the education budget. In that case, where. Next, perhaps Mr Osborne would like to tell us what he plans to do on Tax Avoidance. Could labour have done more on that? Possibly. But it will be interesting to see if that happens here given that 1 of the Tories’ biggest backers (or at least he was up until the election) was a non-dom. Also, is the government going to increase VAT? A lot of the economists the treasury use for its forecasts say it will, in which case, how does it make sense to decrease NI and replace it with VAT? I think the British Retail Consortium said that it would be the lesser evil, but their members will be directly hit by this, and it will hit small businesses and hit recovery. Sticking with the Treasury Civil Servants and economists, what on Earth is this ‘Office for Budget Responsibility’ nonsense all about? How is it anything other than a new Quango? And perhaps Cameron and Osborne can explain how the ‘Big Society’ does anything other than run exactly counter to the idea of accountability? If individuals run public services, they are by definition not public. And finally, if cutting spending is so important to growth, why is it that, as the Guardian reported last week, when Spain tried to embark on austerity measures, the markets evidently lost confidence, and when Fitch’s downgraded its credit rating to I think AA- it said specifically that austerity measures were harming growth.
And to Nick Clegg I say:
What a hypocrite. He talks about the ‘New Politics’, yet up until the election he was saying that the same cuts he now supports would damage recovery. Similarly, I notice that the coalition has agreed to a 1-year freeze in the Council Tax, when here in Notts the Lib Dems were standing alongside Labour in opposing that very freeze and the cuts that went with it when the Tories introduced it. How can the Lib Dems, and the coalition talk about the ‘New Politics’, when up until now, we’ve seen a backroom deal in which the Liberal Democrats have completely sold themselves on the economy and deficit, and at the same time propose a 55% supermajority which, if approved would have created a zombie government in contempt of Parliament.
In short, people will look at what the coalition says on the economy, and conclude that when George Osborne cuts spending, he is doing so not to cut the deficit but to fund his party’s own regressive shopping list. And when people look at the Liberal Democrats, they will see a party that sold itself for a seat in power. There are many names you can give that, but 1 of the names that would not feature on that list is ‘New Politics.’
Turning to other matters, on the Labour leadership contenders, I do think that the party members should have more of a say. This is particularly true I think with regard to candidate selection. I think Ed Balls is making a serious error in the comments he is making on Europe and on immigration. What labour does not need to do is learch to the right.
Finally, it is not often I read Guido Falk’s blog, but I did yesterday and saw his 2 articles on the new Environment secretary:
http://order-order.com/2010/06/07/farm-gate-gm-lobbying-links-falling-on-defra-ears/
And:
http://order-order.com/2010/06/07/farm-gate-spelman-shuts-down-lobbying-firm/
Wow, what a lot in there.
Kurt
Politics Summary: Tuesday, June 8th | Left Foot Forward http://bit.ly/cFJ9ad
Simon
Politics Summary: Tuesday, June 8th | Left Foot Forward http://bit.ly/cj2Jqo
Jacquie Martin
I am very alarmed at this proposal to consult the public on the cuts. I’ve been looking at a number of blogs and see a whole tirade of abuse against benefit claimants, asylum seekers, immigrants, translation services, legal aid, single parents – the usual suspects, in other words.
As usual, there are no details of these plans to include the public in the decision making process. Who’s going to be consulted, how and on what? Is it just me, or does this smack of having absolutely no idea what they’re doing?
This looks like they’re trying to shift the responsibility of government onto others. As this applies to ‘painful cuts’ expected to ‘change our way of life’ ‘for a generation’, I would rather these policies were not decided by a bunch of right-wing loudmouths.
They’ve been forced to reconsider on both the rape anonymity and the 55% manority proposals as I predicted they would. They are starting to look ridiculous. I find this further prospect of mob rule somewhat chilling.