After the announcement of a further £2bn cuts today it seems as though we can wave goodbye to the pre-election "efficiency savings" policy championed by the Tories.
After Danny Alexander’s announcement of a further £2 billion of spending cuts today it seems as though we can well and truly wave goodbye to the “efficiency savings” policy championed by the Conservatives during their election campaign.
The theory that £12 billion in “efficiency savings” could be found in 2010/11 was forcibly challenged by opponents from the moment it was proffered by George Osborne in the run-up to the election. The Conservative efficiency savings model was deemed deceptive by their opponents; conceivable only with the aid of “magic”. Tory spells seemingly forgotten or mis-uttered; cuts on frontline services, rather than efficiencies, have unsurprisingly begun to appear.
George Osborne’s £6 billion of spending cuts just three weeks ago signalled the first assault on frontline areas such as health and education. Danny Alexander’s list of cuts today included the cancellation of projects such as the North Tees and Hartlepool hospital and suspension of the £73 million Health Research Support Initiative. Moves to this effect seem hardly like “cutting waste”, as George Osborne’s pre-election mantra boldly claimed.
As well as combating general national debt, the Conservative strategy of cutting back on wasteful government spending intended to offset Labour’s increase in national insurance. Osborne had called the raise the “economics of the madhouse“.
However, if we cast our minds back to 2008 and consider the Prime Minister’s own assessment of a government “efficiency drive”, it appears that the Conservatives have had a few mental jolts of their own. Cameron cited an episode of Yes Minister, in which one such “efficiency drive” is deployed as a smokescreen for action that is ultimately more “difficult”, more painful.
“[It’s] one of the oldest tricks in the book”, Cameron said at the time. Such a trick, apparently, that with the reality of government kicking in, he can’t find the efficiencies after all.
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
14 Responses to “R.I.P – Conservative “efficiency savings””
mike
Did I hear the Lib Dem leader of sheffield Council defending his governmnet losing 400 jobs at forge Master
some leader
JoshC
Mike, yes that was Scrivens, leader of the minority Sheffield Council.
I’m not shocked by him defending this move. Scrivens has demonstrated several times that he’s only interested in the areas of Sheffield that vote Lib-Dem in local elections. One of the first things he did when he became leader was to take money from the poor, rundown areas of the city (incidentally Labour voting areas) and give it to the rich, affluent areas of the city (Lib-Dem areas) in the name of ‘fairness’. Within the last few weeks it’s been revealed that he and other Lib-Dem Councillors drew up a list of 30 areas in Sheffield were they might locate several dozen Traveller families. Every single area they picked voted for a Labour Councillor. They didn’t even consider any of the suitable sites in their own back yards.
Forgemasters aren’t in a Lib-Dem area so Scrivens couldn’t give a monkeys.
The argument the government are putting about that there wasn’t any money to pay for things like the Forgemasters loan is total crap. The ‘free’ school policy alone, a new (and wholely unnecessary) spending commitment by this government, will cost far far more and will not return benefits to our economy as many of the deals they’ve now shredded would have.
I wonder how many of the cancelled deals will be in Tory and Lib-Dem area? Not all of the deals Labour made were in Labour constituencies. I suspect they’ll keep those deals…
Politics Summary: Friday, June 18th | Left Foot Forward
[…] costing the constituency of Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, more than £100 million. Left Foot Forward yesterday mourned the passing of the Conservative’s pre-election promise to find […]
Jacquie Martin
Mr Sensible
Yes, I totally agree with you. Not five minutes in and we have a new government department – the OBR. The academies and free schools plan will just take all the money away from the rest. Selective education again effectively and with very little money left for the also rans.
As far as the marriage tax allowance goes – don’t get me started. There is no justification for the taxpayer to reward a lifestyle choice. I know some would say that child benefits in any form do that, but having children is a necessity if we want to continue to evolve. And their argument about it being best for children is continually being rebutted – another paper out this week showing it’s irrelevant.
The Tories are just glossing over the better than expected figures. It doesn’t suit their argument. They are oblivious to respected commentators such as Larry Elliott and the FT’s economic editor who are repeatedly telling Osborne he’s making a big mistake. If we go back into recession, they’ll just blame the Labour ‘mess’.
I’ve just been reading about more cuts today, such as free swimming for the elderly and under 16s. These are beneficial services – keeping the young occupied and fit and keeping the elderly active. The alternative – a drain on the health service, youngsters sitting in front of DVDs with pizzas.
We’re back to the short termism of Thatcher. And that’s before Tuesday hits us between the eyes.
tracy j
@Jackie
“having children is a necessity if we want to continue to evolve.”
are you on drugs or something? what the hell are you talking about? who says I or anyone else wants to ‘evolve’. you done a survey or something?