News that the Treasury is looking for even bigger cuts from unprotected Whitehall departments is adding to the public sector gloom. So what is to be done?
'Bedroom tax' and housing benefit caps. Council tax benefit changes. Harsh changes to benefits for disabled people. Deep cuts to public services already made or in train; with a call from Treasury ministers for proposals for 10% further cuts in the Spending Review this summer. The prospect of even deeper cuts after 2015. An exponential growth in food banks and now the introduction of ‘food vouchers’. Increased homelessness even before the housing benefit changes hit. Adverse changes to employment protection legislation. Rising youth unemployment and a Work Programme that has not delivered its promise. Confused and often inaccurate statements about immigration and its impact. Shortage of affordable housing in the social sector as well as housing to buy. Cuts to public sector support for the voluntary and community sector; as well as a more challenging environment for fund raising. Lack of economic growth and potentially a ‘triple dip’ recession .....
This list could have been longer but I felt that thirteen items was sufficient. The number thirteen seems apposite.
I could have of course have mentioned increasing child poverty and income and wealth inequality. And the income tax reductions for those with the highest incomes. And the growing size of the national debt.
I could also have balanced the list with some of the government’s more positive reforms and changes. But for many citizens the positive news is overshadowed by the reality and the worries created by what are seen as negative pressures and impacts.
I recall when Mrs Thatcher’s government was making what then seemed to be very severe cuts and introducing the ‘poll tax’. However, in comparison with the cuts to local government and other services required as a result of the 2010 Spending Review let alone those yet to come, the 1980’s cuts were relatively mild. I suspect that the impact of the ‘bedroom tax’ and other benefit changes will match or even exceed the ‘poll tax’ in terms of their impact. I very much hope that I am wrong.
There is another big difference between today and the 1980s. There seemed to be a much greater sense of anger and resistance to both specific policies and the underlying approach then than there is seemingly today. I sense that people are more resigned to what is happening and some polling suggests that many – perhaps a majority – are supportive of overall government strategy on the economy and public expenditure. Will this support last? It does seem to be declining.
There would be no merit in adopting some of more extreme positions that some local authorities and campaign groups adopted in the 1980s.
Local authorities do have to set legal budgets as this offers the best protection for their communities – making hard considered choices will be painful but unavoidable. It is essential to consult and involve with communities, the local voluntary sector and businesses, staff and unions and citizens. Trade unions will need to be and are being pragmatic in order to ensure the ‘least worst’ deal for their members. Voluntary and community groups are having to take on services – such as food banks – to ameliorate some of the worst hardship and this does not imply acceptance of the policies or conditions that are creating the hardship. Individual organisations will decide what they should do driven by their values, mission and resources.
However, given the scale of the problems, some concerted and co-ordinated campaigning would seem appropriate and necessary.
It would be great if the voluntary and community sector, charities, pressure groups, faith organisations, trade unions , perhaps local authorities and others were to find common cause to make the case against not just specific cuts and harmful policies but against the underlying macro-policies that underpin and created them. Of course, many of such organisations can and should not get embroiled in partisan politics. They can and should speak out for the beneficiaries and society more generally. Ideally they have to be prepared to argue for alternatives – simply being against can be important but promoting an alternative can create greater traction with the public and politicians like.
I recognise that it is challenging to hope that disparate organisations can find common cause in this way. But if they – we – don’t it may be too late. I would like to think that informal conversations and the exploration of what might be possible are taking place. This will require organisations and their leaders to park their egos and self interest in order to coalesce around what might be feasible. They may form several different alliances to argue different cases but too much fragmentation would be unhelpful. They must appeal to the public and would have to avoid an party political stance.
Through working together to expose and oppose elements of public policy they would hopefully identify alternative ways in which they can work together in a positive manner to create better outcomes – even in a period of austerity – for citizens, communities, their members and their beneficiaries. Co-operatives, voluntary collectivism and citizen empowerment have historically sprung from such approaches.
Those organisations with the resources and expertise would have to lead such activity at the national and local level. This should not be about creating bureaucracy but about co-ordinating and focusing energy and activity. Time is of the essence.
I started with a litany of thirteen fundamental issues that are creating hardship, misery and fear. Failure to act could lead to the doubling or even trebling of that list- and worse, of the hardship, misery and fear.
