The Cuts Agenda – Don’t run with scissors
October 14th, 2009 by Joshua Fenton-Glynn Posted in Uncategorized, child poverty, equality, livelihoods, uk poverty
Since David Cameron’s speech in Manchester last Thursday, a large part of the political discourse has been about what cuts can, and should, be made in public services. It is important that in a debate about saving money and reducing the deficit, we don’t lose sight of the important services that people on low incomes rely on – and that poorly-paid public sector workers aren’t used as a political football.
The main thing that concerns me when looking at the increasingly radical agenda around public sector cuts coming from all the main political parties, is that although efficiency savings can doubtlessly be made, they will have to be on a level that seriously effects front-line services in order to make a significant dent in the deficit. I think any government needs to think hard before making cuts in the services that people on low incomes use the most, in this light it was a relief when the Conservatives ruled out calls from some in their ranks to abolish Sure Start centres – although it is concerning that there is no such protection for funding of libraries, job centres, social workers and housing services.
Public sector cuts Conservative’s proposed public sector pay freeze will also risk poverty for public sector workers themselves. Public sector workers are already payed less than those in the private sector for equivalent jobs with half earning less than 20,000 a year. A pay freeze will allow their wages to fall further behind the private sector. It is likely, that public sector cuts and a pay freeze would impact the government’s child poverty targets: with 65% of public sector workers being women, 90% of lone parents being women, and half of lone parent families being in poverty already – then freezing the pay and cutting the jobs of a large group of already poorly paid women workers will have detrimental effects on children in poverty (already over 4 million).
It’s important that politicians avoid using our public sector as a political football. The relatively low saving of around £200m a year to be gained from a public sector pay freeze risks pushing more people into poverty and any significant cuts risk limiting services for those who need them the most.
5 Responses to “The Cuts Agenda – Don’t run with scissors”
By Jo on Oct 14, 2009
Hello Josh,
Whilst I’m interested in the themes of this article (and, working with an Authority that has recently swerved to the Right, I am quite!), I wonder specifically, what you mean by a “political football”? To what end would people like me and my colleagues be used as a football of any form, and particularly how so a political one? I’m not being difficult, I’m genuinely intrigued.
On a wider, and perhaps more relevant, theme: with the Conservative takeover seemingly inevitable, what’s the Oxfam perspective on the repercussions?
Sorry if I’m off the beaten track a bit here; you’ve prompted some contemplation!
By Joshua Fenton-Glynn on Oct 15, 2009
Hi Jo
By political football I mean an issue not discussed because of it’s own merits but as a way of making cheep political points. This is particularly a problem in pre election periods.
Obviously it’s difficult to make any judgement on the outcome of the election before it has happened, however were the Conservatives to win the election as seems likely then Oxfam – as a non partisan NGO – would work with them as we do the current Labour government.
There are elements of Conservative policy that Oxfam would welcome for examples look at Moussa Haddad’s recent article on the Centre for Social Justice’s report on welfare reform http://www.oxfamblogs.org/ukpovertypost/2009/09/at-last-some-new-thinking-on-welfare-reform/ As with the current government however the prospect of Conservative introducing ill-considered public spending cuts however concerns us.
By Clare on Oct 15, 2009
Hi Josh,
I think you’re right to narrow down the focus and make clear WHO will experience the cuts – i.e. low paid women, many of them single parents, and their children. It’s clear that governments (and of course those who want to be the government) feel it’s easiest to make cuts that will affect the people with whom the general public are least sympathetic. The vicious cuts to asylum seekers’ benefits have made that horribly clear.
By Hannah on Oct 19, 2009
But the debate that’s not being had is that spending cuts are not inevitable – the UK could wipe out the majority of its deficit if the government sorted out the massive tax gap. The Tax Justice Network estimates tax avoidance costs the Exchequer £100 billion per year, yet nationalised banks like RBS are still employing staff to advise on tax avoidance! Plus, the compliance regime for tax collections is in a mess with £25billion of uncollected revenue, yet at the same time the government slashes the HMRC workforce – the very people who they should be employing more of to collect these taxes.