The main story this morning is yesterday's warning by the Chancellor of cuts of up to 20 per cent in Government departments, with benefits and pensions in the firing line.
Sign up to receive this daily email by 9am every morning.
The main story this morning is yesterday’s warning by the Chancellor of cuts of up to 20 per cent in Government departments, with benefits and pensions in the firing line. The Telegraph reports that “benefits, tax credits and public sector pensions have been formally earmarked for potential cuts for the first time under Government plans to avert a Greek-style debt crisis”, with Mr Osborne saying these areas would be “comprehensively” scrutinised, singling them out for special attention in the forthcoming spending review.
The report says: “It is the first time that the welfare system – such as child benefit, disability payments and unemployment benefits – has been identified as a target for cuts. Freezing all benefit payments would save more than £4 billion a year. Ministers refused to rule out means testing child benefit for the middle classes. But benefits for pensioners, such as the winter fuel allowance, will be safeguarded. Any move to cut the pensions of the six million workers in the public sector would be controversial with unions.” The Independent describes the Chancellor’s announcement as “Osborne’s Bombshell”, and says: “such moves would be highly controversial and would call into question the Liberal-Conservative coalition’s promises to protect the poor and most vulnerable in society, and could anger many people who voted Liberal Democrat in last month’s election… Ministers hinted that pensioners would keep their winter fuel payments, free bus passes and TV licences. But, in another blow to middle-income families, Gordon Brown’s £23.6bn flagship tax credits scheme will be pared back.”
Meanwhile, the Financial Times reports that the Chancellor “has told cabinet colleagues they might have to make spending cuts of 15-20 per cent or more”. The FT says the Chancellor “steeled the cabinet to rise to the ‘great national challenge of our generation’, telling ministers to start work now on what promises to be a bruising autumn”, adding: “He highlighted specific ‘savings and reform’ in social security, public service pensions and tax credits, many of which are paid to middle class families who are likely to see their welfare payments stripped away. Although those items comprise a large part of overall government spending, the idea of cutting or freezing welfare payments and pensions has until now been the subject of relatively little political debate… The Tories would ring-fence fewer areas – health and aid spending – but cut faster.” The Guardian reports on some of the reaction to Mr Osborne’s cuts, with former Labour minister Paul Myners telling the Lords: “There is nothing progressive about a government that consistently spends more than it can raise in taxation, and certainly nothing progressive that endows generations to come with the liabilities incurred with respect to the current generation… The government can create the environment conducive to the creation of jobs, but it cannot create jobs, and we mislead ourselves if we believe it can.” Brendan Barber, TUC general secretary, however, warned the cuts could lead to “very broad-based campaigns not just about the impact on the jobs and living standards of those that deliver public services, but also about communities”.
The Times leads on Afghanistan, with the headline “Military chiefs blamed for blundering into Helmand with ‘eyes shut and fingers crossed'”. It reports that military leaders and senior civil servants “ignored warnings” Britain was “ill prepared” to send troops to Helmand province; nearly 300 coalition servicemen and women have died in southern Afghanistan since the depoloyment in 2006, says the Times, though senior officers insist that the operation was justified to revitalise the Nato mission, combat the Taleban and reassert Britain’s military prowess after setbacks in Iraq”. A Times investigation has found that Top ranks within the Ministry of Defence and other Whitehall departments are accused of: grossly underestimating the threat from the Taleban; ignoring warnings that planned troop numbers were inadequate; offering only the military advice they thought ministers wanted to hear; and signing off on a confused command-and-control structure. Countering the criticism, Lieutenant-General Sir Robert Fry, one of the main architects of the move south, told the paper: “We felt that time was slipping through our fingers in Afghanistan. We had a campaign that was running out of steam, we had an insurgency which was gathering pace and we had a central government that was going from bad to worse. The strategic objective was the resuscitation of the Afghan campaign and by any standard that has been achieved.”
The Independent reports on the plight of asylum seekers forcibly returned to Iraq, with ministers facing “a wave of anger” after ordering the forcible return of failed asylum-seekers to Baghdad. It reports that “the decision to go ahead with the deportations was taken in the face of United Nations guidelines and despite a Foreign Office warning against all travel to the city” and that Baghdad “is still suffering suicide bombings and sectarian violence more than seven years after the war”. Dashty Jamal, general secretary of the International Federation of Iraqi Refugees, expressed disappointment with the Lib Dems for allowing this to happen, telling the Indy: “I’m very unhappy this coalition government – especially as it contains Liberal Democrats – is continuing this inhumane policy. There are still lots of problems with security in Iraq. Workers are being killed daily. There are many murders, kidnaps.” Jan Shaw, Amnesty International’s UK refugee programme director, described the decision as “unfathomable”, saying: “It is unfathomable the UK can consider Baghdad a safe place to return people. As far as we are concerned, removing someone to Iraq should only take place when the security situation in the whole country has stabilised.” However Matthew Coats, head of immigration at the UK Border Agency, insisted the security situation was “significantly better” now; he said: “In 2008 the courts found that we were able to return people to Iraq. The security situation in Iraq is significantly better now than it was in 2008.”
And The Times reports science minister David Willetts’s warning to his colleagues that independent expert advice “must be respected”. In an effort to repair relations with scientists, damaged by the sacking of government drugs adviser David Nutt by the previous administration, “principles that give expert advisers the right to disagree publicly with government policy have been incorporated into the code of practice for ministers”, with Mr Willetts saying he had pressed for this step “both to reassure scientists of their value and to ingrain evidence-based policymaking in Whitehall”. He said: “I want this Government to have effective policies that tackle Britain’s problems and that means they have to be evidence-based… This was not just put in because the scientific community wanted it. It was put in because it’s very good guidance to an approach we think we have to take to tackle Britain’s problems.” The Times explains that: “The principles for scientific advice were issued in March by the previous Science Minister, Lord Drayson, to reassure scientists who were concerned by the dismissal of Professor Nutt for criticising the classification of cannabis and Ecstasy. They guarantee the academic freedom and independence of advisers, and say that ministers must give reasons when they reject recommendations.” Mr Willetts’s remarks have been welcomed by the Campaign for Science and Engineering, director Imran Khan saying: “It’s a great statement of government intent for a senior minister to be advocating pilot schemes and evaluation of evidence where possible.”
2 Responses to “Politics Summary: Wednesday, June 9th”
Politics Summary: Wednesday, June 9th « The best Labour blogs
[…] More… […]
Jacquie Martin
Just to pick up on the deportation story – the Guardian ran one disclosing the details of a letter from the TSD to all administrative high court judges, asking them not to entertain last minute JR claims which could delay the flight.
They cited the ‘complexities, practicialities and costs involved in arranging charter flights’ as the reason for the special request.
That is a blatant attempt to interfere with the rule of law. To ask judges not to hear cases because it’s inconvenient and would mess up their plans is quite astonishing.