Britain's New Regime Forges Ahead
With the Master safely away on vacation, it's time for the Minion to take over. Casting about for fodder to write about, the Guardian answered my call with a detailed story about announcements made today on the economic front.
Naturally the new coalition government chose a tory for the all important post of Chancellor of the Exchequer, in appointing one George Osborne, who delivered a budget plan that business is quietly supportive of (but still complaining anyway), and unions are predictably upset about.
In announcing cuts of 6.25 billion pounds, this no doubt foreshadows the kind of initiatives we can expect here in Canada in the future, regardless of whether we find ourselves with a conservative or liberal government in the times ahead.
I'm no economist and too many numbers make my head hurt, but I've tried to distil the information into a meaningful snapshot of the kind of cuts that have been imposed so we can try to compare that to our situation here in Canada. I've done my best to get all the numbers right but don't guarantee complete accuracy.
Civil servants will take a hit with a hiring freeze of one year. That's expected to translate into savings of 163 million pounds, and thousands of jobs that will go unfilled. An efficiency and reform group has been formed to ensure the cuts really happen this time, including the use of consultants and job perks like paid travel and other expenses. The Cabinet office has to find savings of only 79 million pounds, which is still better than the funding boost to the PMO that the tories gave themselves in Canada while every other government department was cut back.
The National Health Service was left alone, but Education was cut by 670 million pounds. Some was set aside for increasing apprenticeship programs, and while there were cuts of 780 million pounds to the "Department for Communities and Local Government", an extra 170 million was found for social housing. Grants to local authorities were cut by 1.2 billion pounds at the same time.
The famous Home Office was cut by a modest 357 million pounds, with a mind blowing 135 million coming from police services. Compare that to Canada, where we are criminalizing more and more Canadians with our fake law and order agenda, building more and better jails to house them/us. Our various police bodies rarely have a funding request denied despite the fact that the crime rate has been falling for some years now.
In the "Department for Work and Pensions" (their version of Welfare/Disabilities), cuts to various programs totalled 535 million pounds, with an extra 640 million saved by axing a program called the Child Trust, and cutting "ineffective" job training programs. Funny how no matter which side of the Atlantic you`re on, it`s always the least advantaged who must sacrifice the most.
In Economy and Business, 836 million in unspecified cuts were announced. Likely targets are loans to manufacturing interests, especially the auto sector, although unidentified cuts are the easiest to fall off the butcher`s block.
It kind of looks like the new British version of coalition government is alot like a conservative government, with a few sops thrown in for the Lib Dems to keep them happy. Not too surprising given the election results. After all, this is what the people voted for, and they seem to have been unfazed by the results.
Time will tell how this works out, and what effects will transpire across Europe and here in North America. Hey, it beats reality tv for this watcher of politics.
15 comments:
Exactly!
"Naturally the new coalition government chose a tory for the all important post of Chancellor of the Exchequer,... and unions are predictably upset about.
In announcing cuts of 6.25 billion pounds, this no doubt foreshadows the kind of initiatives we can expect here in Canada in the future, regardless of whether we find ourselves with a conservative or liberal government in the times ahead."
... does the mess in Greece carry any significance in this discussion?
To Anonymous: No, the situation in Greece is not relevant to a comparison between Britain and Canada.
If you care to do the research and make your own comparisons between Greece and anywhere else you like, please go ahead, the Burd Report will post it.
You see - that's why it IS relevant.
Neither Britain nor Canada can function wisely without learning from the crisis (plural) manifesting in Europe, and by association, the rest of the world's economies. The aversion to cutting when indicators demand it is a world-wide affliction among the "have-it"s.
Economies cycle between prosperity and austerity - no exceptions, and cutting is part of austerity. The problem is that once we've tasted that heady "have more than we need" prosperity, we just don't want to let go, even if not doing so means double pain later when its no longer a choice of degree.
So yes, Greece's problems are definitely relevant, whether you want then to be or not. You just need to include them as a "what if" category in your comparison.
Besides that, no matter how badly you want it to be a "Tory" problem, it's not; for that matter, it's not a "Liberal" or "NDP" one either. It's a matter of wealth distribution, and that crosses all ideological thresholds without reserve. So why do you want to blame anything and everything on any one political ideology, as you are so often wont to do? It just seems to significantly diminish the effectiveness of your argument. But then again, maybe you don't care about the point as much as just pinning it on a favourite target in hopes of diminishing it instead. Such a waste - too bad
"Our various police bodies rarely have a funding request denied despite the fact that the crime rate has been falling for some years now."
Is it possible that the one is actually a product of the other, instead of despite the other?
Could it be that "the fact that the crime rate has been falling for some years now" is the intended result of the (above opined)"Our various police bodies rarely have a funding request denied".
One does not have to be a supporter of the idea of a 'police state' to acknowledge that some things actually happen as intended and can be a good thing at the same time.
"...to acknowledge that some things actually happen as intended and can be a good thing at the same time."
That happens far more often than not. It also needs to be said more often to counter the social demoralization caused by chronic complaining about bloated entitlements not being met.
I know that in Cobourg at the Salvation Army food cupboard they served a record 53 families a couple of weeks ago.
Is that the kind of "bloated entitlement" we need to stop? Seems to me if they had so much largesse from government they wouldn't need to spend up to 3 hours just to get food.
Don't forget, the Sally Ann is only one of several such food relief operations in Cobourg, and they are all very busy.
Where would you begin to improve the situation, and what would be your first 3 realistically achievable actions? ... get the ball rolling here.
OK Anonymous, here we go.
Looking federally because I believe in strong central government, these are the 3 things I'd do to have a more equitable society:
1. Guaranteed Annual Income program for everybody,
administered through the tax system and taxed back from those with their own income, ie most of us.
2. Top to bottom reform of the tax system so corporations and the wealthy pay their share of the burden
3. Electoral reform so more viewpoints supported by voters are reflected, and reflected fairly, in Parliament
Now Anonymous, fire away and tell me why none of these is achievable. I'm sure you will.
Re: DebO
I work every day with people who are on welfare or disability. I see the difficulty they have in making ends meet and the poverty the live in. It is often heartbreaking. The last thing these people need, however, is a guaranteed income.
I often go into houses where there are several people, young and old, who are supported by Ontario Works and living in subsidized housing sitting around watching television all day. The last thing people who are able to work need is a guaranteed income.
There are many reasons that they do not work, the primary reason is lack of opportunity. They are not supported well enough through our educational system to get the skills they need to obtain a job. Often this becomes multi-generational. It is not because they are lazy - though some are - it is because they have been raised in an environment that teaches them to cope with less. They learn to get what they can from the system and take their lumps.
What needs to happen to affect real positive change is break the poverty chain. To provide adequate schooling so that A) kids stay in school long enough and B) they get the skills they need to be able to compete for jobs.
This would solve so many problems. Crime and drug use would decrease. The tax base and productivity would skyrocket. People just need an opportunity, but when they have been conditioned to expect that it will never come, the cycle goes on, and on, and on...
There will always be a job defecit. People will always be out of work. There need to be government programs to support those people. But we need to give people a chance, not a free paycheque.
"Now Anonymous, fire away and tell me why none of these is achievable. I'm sure you will." ...
better yet, you lay out how they can be achieved.
As well, some clarification would help - 1-would that be in conjunction with a guaranteed employment program? 2-would that mean the same minimum income for everyone? 3-would that involve age, ability, education, family association, or any other identifiable factors? or are you recommending carte-blanche, no variables, kind of application?
..and with regard to "..so corporations and the wealthy pay their share of the burden", how does one determine such "share" for, let's say - the wealthy? If someone imigrates here with a family wealth in tow, or if someone wins the lottery with their last buck, what would be the criteria for determining their share of a burden to which they have no connection?
Don't misunderstand my questions, I'm not even implying they wouldn't work, I just want some better understanding of how you would make them work.
Besides, if I'm working my ass off for an income that just coincides with this proposed guaranteed income, what would incite me to keep on doing so if I could simply apply and be guaranteed the same income for doing nothing or next to it? I'm not saying it won't work, I'm just not sharp enough to understand how it will. It's your proposal, convince me and I'll support it.
"I know that in Cobourg at the Salvation Army food cupboard they served a record 53 families a couple of weeks ago. Is that the kind of "bloated entitlement" we need to stop?
Absolutely NOT. I used that service for the first time two weeks ago. Not for a moment did I feel entitled to the box of ceral I received or the other items -- matter of fact, I felt a bloated sense of gratitude for this modest service that I will need to tide me over for the next few months.
Bloated entitlement would be if I chronically demanded more and better. Get the difference? It's about attitudes. I don't own a home. I don't own a car to pollute the environment of other people. I can claim that my consumption of goods and services has always been sub-modest compared to the labour I provided to the overall economy.
"2. Top to bottom reform of the tax system so corporations and the wealthy pay their share of the burden"
What a displau of the depth of ignorance of what corporations and the wealthy do with their money to better society. Strong central government -- nothing knows how to handle money better than governments.
Governments should be encouraging wealth creation, so that there is more to spread around. Wealth creation is primary, wealth distribution is secondary. They must always co-operate for mutual advantage.
Pragmatist makes some very good points about the intense sense of hopelessness and resignation that can envelop people after years of hardship, and enduring the palpable contempt of the "haves" is excruciatingly painful too.
My years of experience as a poor single parent and then a paid advocate for the disadvantaged taught me that many people in this category have disabilites that keep them from holding a job.
Often these disabilities are intellectual or in the realm of mental illness and both are very hard to overcome. Long periods of time under the extreme stress of chronic poverty don't help, and services to treat them are scarce.
Many of our mental health professionals lack either the motivation or understanding to really tackle this kind of problem, and this is an issue that psychiatric survivors often tell us is a huge obstacle to treatment.
Many more low income people do work, contrary to popular stereotype, but don't have the skills or smarts to make a living wage. These days a couple both working full time at minimum wage don't make enough to get them to the poverty line, yet they keep going, keep trying, to their enduring credit.
We need to subsidise them all, working or not. Nobody should go without adequate housing, or proper medical care or food to meet their family needs.
Especially children. Forty percent of food bank users are actually children. Whether their parents are lazy screw ups or not, should they go hungry? When we deprive them, we guarantee their lives will be wasted too.
It's time to stop the cycle of poverty and I believe a guaranteed annual income would be a good place to start.
"enduring the palpable contempt of the "haves" is excruciatingly painful too."
The enduring palpable contempt towards those who generate wealth can also create unnecessary resentment towards the poor.
Learn a new vocabulary and perhaps the haves will be more generous with their hard earned wealth, especially if one argues for a win-win situation.
I know of two women in Cobourg who had no domestic abuse, but nevertheless, were provided with shelter at the Northumberland Women's Shelter. Males do not have this splendid resource.
Men commit suicide four times the rate of women. Far more men die of suicide than women die of homicide at the hands of men.
In spite of this imbalance, it is compounded by the imbalance of the lion's share of social assistance going towards women. Justice?
How much govt funding goes towards breast cancer research and how much for prostate cancer research.
Men are expendable. Where are the women social activists who make chronic calls for equity, but only for women. As Orwell wrote in Animal Farm, "Some are more equal than others."
Post a Comment