Thursday, 10 February 2011

From those who have not....

I have commented before on the hidden (although becoming increasingly revealed) Thatcherite nature of David Cameron's Conservative Party, in its tendency cut without mercy and to take from the poor to give to the rich.

Last night I watched Mark Easton's BBC news item on the way council allocations have been calculated. It showed how poorer council areas get bigger cuts and richer council areas get smaller cuts, the specific examples being Hackney, an inner city council, which gets £210.19 per head cut from its allocation and Wokengham, a leafy suburb, that gets £2.86 per head cuts.

Now you might think that this is not justice: why should rich people get more money to deal with their (smaller) problems than poor people get to deal with their (presumably bigger and more persistent) problems?

According to Eric Pickles, the Local Government Minister, giving richer people more money is actually "fairer" because Hackney has, in the past, been getting a greater allocation (to deal with local poverty), so wealthy Wokingham needs to "catch up"!

So, one big difference with the '80s is that Dave is smarter than Maggie in his use of rhetoric: his taking from the rich and giving to the rich is all in the name of fairness!!!

It's a twisted logic I have to say, although it is prefigured in the saying:
...to those who have, more shall be given; and  from those who have not, what little they have will be taken away.....

I had always thought that this was an underlying foundation of Conservative philosophy. I have to say, this is the first time I have heard it expressed so openly as policy and admitted so brazenly. 

11 comments:

  1. Nicely spun Braveheart, as you seem to equate the cut with the amount of money per head each borough gets per head.

    Alas and alack, that's not quite how it works.

    The Department for Communities and Local Government notes that funding per head for Hackney residents will be £1,043 in 2011-12 compared with £125 per head in Wokingham.

    Whether I agree with the manner of the cuts is entirely a different matter, but your selective use of the figures is disappointing.

    Using the true numbers, you might actually develop a truer understanding of what the conservatives think is fair - rather than the spin you give it, presumably trying to make it look more sinister than it actually is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not my "spinning" (as you put it) Jim, I was quoting Mark Easton's report, which you can read here...

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2011/02/fairs_fair.html

    BTW, are your figures not just as selective?

    They don't register the size of the cut or the extent of the need.

    The size of the cut is important, because that indicates the economic impact on the affordability of services, whether and how much they have to be cut and whether and how much that impacts in the way of job cuts.

    And the extent of the need is important because that indicates social and individual impact of the comparative reduction or loss of service.

    I would say that a rich area will feel no impact at all from a £2.86 cut per head, but a poorer area will feel severe impact from a £210.19 cut per head.

    As for "...a truer understanding of what the conservatives think is fair ...". I have no need to interpret, they say it themselves... to quote Mark Easton;

    "My ministerial source explained that, during the Labour years, extra grants were given to poor areas - money, he said, "they were not due"....the Formula Grant councils receive from central taxation already includes additional funds taking account of the level of deprivation in an area. The new settlement, he explained, was simply "unwinding that process".

    .... Eric Pickles.... argues that there is far more scope for savings in authorities that have been receiving more money."

    And also

    "....the effect of the settlement is that poor neighbourhoods are taking a bigger hit than rich ones."

    Which is true, and what I said.

    ReplyDelete
  3. No Braveheart, you specifically said

    ".to those who have, more shall be given; and from those who have not, what little they have will be taken away...."

    was an underlying foundation of conservative philosophy.

    I don't believe that the Conservatives are any less interested in fairness than you - they just come at it from a different view point, that being that everyone should pay the same amount and receive the same monetary benefits from the state, notwithstanding ability to pay or bear the burden.

    You also seem to have the mindset that the benefits currently given to the poor are theirs by right and reducing them is taking something from them - the Tory view would be that they are not taking something away, but rather giving something less.

    Now, I suspect that you and I probably share the same viewpoint on the benefit of benefits and why in a true big society, the haves should contribute more than the have nots - I just don't see the point in trying to paint the Tory view as something it's not. Doing so is divisive and clouds the debate IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I did say that, and I do not resile from that opinion.

    I judge from the Judeo-Christian perspective and common morality - love your neighbour, practice charity, "if you have two shirts give one to your brother who has none", it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than it is for a rich man enter the Kingdom of Heaven - and also, not from what they say, but from what they do when they are in power.

    When in power Tories cut taxes for the rich and services for the poor. In evidence, the 1980s and the current Tory Government (and SNP govt BTW). Instead of giving a shirt, they take it away.

    "You also seem to have the mindset that the benefits currently given to the poor are theirs by right.."

    They are theirs at the moment (whether by right or not), and have been given legally and democratically.

    "... and reducing them is taking something from them - the Tory view would be that they are not taking something away, but rather giving something less."

    Sorry, that's just sophistry...."reducing them" IS taking away, as is "giving something less"

    If a poorer council has £100 per head to spend this year and after the cuts I have £90 to spend, thats a "reduction" and also "something less". If the richer council has £90 per head this year and £89.50 per head next year, that's not a balanced cut. The poorer council has a greater "reduction" and it also has much "less".

    Let's make that more practical: a poorer council will have more social work cases and they will be more complicated and intractable than a richer council. The poorer council needs more money per head and in total to deal with this matter. Giving the less year by year in the interests of "equalising" the situation is unfair to the poorer council.

    Unless you want to redefine "fairness" to mean "unfairness", which is apparently what Eric Pickles and David Cameron want to do.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Braveheart, it's clear we agree that the broadest shoulders should bear the heaviest burden - which makes me wonder how you actually feel about Labour opposition to Local Income tax as a replacement for the unfair council tax - but to frame the argument in the emotive way that you are trying to is divisive.

    For example
    "Why should rich people get more money to deal with their (smaller) problems than poor people get to deal with their (presumably bigger and more persistent) problems?"

    Of course that's a strange proposition! It's also not a true reflection of what they're actually proposing... so we're no longer talking about what the money should do, but rather your deliberate misconstruction.

    You've fallen into the 'sophistry' trap. You've not given the floating voter anything to think about which can't be refuted by t'other side in an equally vague and emotive way.

    I'm sure your fellow Labour members will applaud this attack on the tories and it'll be back slapping all round at the kirk on Sunday, as you celebrate your Judeo-Christian perspective, but it seems pointless to me as it doesn't actually address the issue of how the councils are expected to operate and why the poorer councils can't do without the money.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jim
    it's not all that clear we agree that the broadest shoulders should bear the heaviest burden - I agree, do you?

    Local Income tax is a red herring.

    "Why should rich people get more money to deal with their (smaller) problems than poor people get to deal with their (presumably bigger and more persistent) problems?"

    OK. "Why should poorer councils get bigger cuts (in the example 70x more!) to deal with their bigger and more intractable problems than richer councils, who (probabaly) have fewer and less intractable problems?"

    "...it seems pointless to me as it doesn't actually address the issue of how the councils are expected to operate and why the poorer councils can't do without the money"

    It wasn't designed to do that. I assume that it is self evident that large cuts will have more impact than smaller cuts. And if poorer councils get biger cuts, the impact will be multiplied.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I can see LIT will be an uncomfortable subject for you, so we'll not talk about Labour hypocrisy for now.

    More of the same old, same old though Braveheart.

    The Tories talk about how much extra money Hackney gets compared to Wokingham.

    Labour cry foul about the relativity of the cuts.

    The Tories claim Labour run councils are inefficient and wasteful.

    Labour cry foul about the relativity of the cuts.

    The Tories point out a number of ways in which council beaurocracy could be cut and made more efficient.

    Labour cry foul about the relativity of the cuts.

    Yawn! Labour losing the middle ground badly here - I try to point out the inadequacies in your argument, you revert to Judeo-Christian philosophy and try to paint the alternative as something morally repugnant without addressing why the Labour run council can't do with less money.

    We can get silly now and I could point out that you can buy a lot more shirts for £1043 than you can for £125 - you need to address why the extra £918 worth of shirts you're getting isn't enough...

    I'd rather hear where the money is going and why it can't be diverted though.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Jim, you mustn't jump to conclusions. I have no problem debating LIT, but it's not part of this post.

    As for the rest of your reply: all I can say is, as I see it, it's about need.

    Inner city areas, deprived areas, poorer areas, need more support, and more money to provide that support. The actual amounts are where we have arrived historically: Hackney £1043/head, Wokingham £125/head. That's the cost of the support each currently gets and needs. Even at these levels, people in Hackney struggle, people in Wokingham struggle less (or fewer of them struggle).

    To cut Hackney 70 times/head more than you cut Wokingham will cause Hackney greater problems (to put it mildly) than Wokingham. And Hackney already has greater problems than Wokingham.

    I think that's unfair because it takes much more from those who need it most.

    You might disagree, but I haven't seen any real arguments or facts to back up to your position except to say that, in your opinion, I'm wrong.

    So. Do you agree that taking £210/head from Hackney and £2.86/head from Wokingham is likley to imopact on the people of Hackney more than on the people of Wokingham?

    And if not, why not?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Braveheart - you've misunderstood me entirely!

    I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying you don't explain why you might be right.

    You don't argue why the Tories can so easily just compare the actual sums spent then call the Labour councils inefficent and wasteful, before applying the coup de grace of pointing out some rather obvious ways in which the council waste could be addressed.

    (BTW: The figures in this post "£1,043 in Hackney compared with £125 per head in Wokingham." are for this year 2011-12. That's not the numbers before the cuts).

    You say it's about need and the Tories say "Yes, we agree that's why Hackney is getting 9 times more support than Wokingham"

    If you were able to talk about the reasons why Hackney needs 11 times more rather than 9 times more, you might be onto something interesting...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Jim, as I said, the post wasn't about that. It was about one council getting a 70x bigger cut than another, and the "fairness" or otherwise of that.

    I assumed that anyone reading would know why an inner city deprived council would need more and would suffer more from deeper cuts.

    You could have explained your point it earlier if you wished(you just have!).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Actually, the way I read your post was as an attack on the immorality of the Tory position with a weak attempt to paint it as something that it wasn't.

    Your last reply shows that you do take that inner-city 'need' for granted but don't have any proposals for how to improve the lot of the council other than to demand more money and then more money on top of that.

    Personally, I'm not familiar with Hackney, but the same story exists in Scotland with Glasgow bemoaning it 'suffering' the biggest cuts, conveniently ignoring that it still gets the biggest proportion of money per head of capita.

    I am more than familiar with the inefficiency and wastefulness (dare I say corruption?) of Glasgow city council though and would be extremely sympathetic to other city councils wishing for a more 'equitable' distribution of government resource.

    ReplyDelete