The dangers of austerity

So, all-out austerity works, does it? Ireland's story is a telling one.

Like the ancient gods, 'the market' (as currency speculators are routinely referred to in excessively reverential terms by sections of the media) will probably never be satisfied, no matter how many sacrifices are lobbed their way.

And so, with the vultures still circling, those voices that warned of internationally concerted austerity, including Barack Obama and the economist Joseph Stiglitz (who warned of 'deficit-cut fetishism') look increasingly like they called it right.

[For more on this subject, here is an interesting post over at Next Left]

All in this together? Osborne plans to CUT bank tax

Now, we know that some senior figures in the banking industry aren't on planet earth. A few are, and recognise the fact that the public is, quite rightly, more than a tad annoyed about the mess they've left us in.

Gideon Osborne, however, occupies a distinct rocky outpost that is depressingly familiar to followers of modern politics - Planet PR. When it comes to regulation or taxation of large corporations, one of the key policy preferences for those occupying this sphere of the political world is how to neutralise public clamouring for action with the very minimum of actual change. So, for example, Osborne is introducing a bank levy to (supposedly) rein in bonuses and try to recoup some of the vast swathes of public cash spent bailing out the industry. All very laudable.

However, we now learn that he'll actually act to reduce the levy if it brings in too much money.

Is it just this blog, or is the fact that the levy may bring in so much cash a telling sign that, as far as bonuses are concerned, it really is back to business as usual? And is this a politician acting out of fear of an exodus of financial firms from the UK or is this a Conservative acting cynically to ensure that his populist measure doesn't actually have the teeth that it is so publicly billed as having?

A Big Mac a day keeps the doctor away

Well, we always knew that Lansley was not keen on regulations on private companies, but handing some of the largest producers of junk food the power to help dictate UK public health policy is something else.

Update 16 November: More on this over at the Guadian's Comment Is Free.

Why Dave loves 'localism'...

One of the more ambiguous terms (and, with "national interest, potentially the most disingenuous) deployed by the Coalition is 'localism'.

For all its positive connotations (boosting local democracy, bringing accountability closer to the people, empowering communities) there is the cold reality - the decimation of national standards and protections and the creation of a commercial free-for-all in major parts of society.

So, for example, in health care, the body that does more than most to keep medical treatment costs down and protect taxpayers from funding ineffective medicines (NICE) is neutered in the name of 'freeing' doctors to make local decisions, but in reality significantly tipping the balance of power in the direction of big pharma.

And, in the case of our national parks, it appears that 'localism' could also mean scrapping safeguards against commercial development of sites of important natural heritage.

The political Right is very astute at deploying friendly-sounding language - 'freedom', 'empowerment' - to smooth the transition to an unfettered free market.

Yet more jobs for the boys (and girls)

Continuing the noble Tory tradition of ditching fair and open competition for nepotism and old-boy networks, Cameron's appointments of friends and associates to civil service roles, without open competition, continues.

The Daily Mail has gone to town on the latest to be hired and has also suggested that senior civil servants are (quite understandably) not totally happy about all of this.


The most disgraceful thing about this is that it betrays the central coalition promise to promote the value of hard work and meritocracy, ditching it instead for cronyism and nepotism. It remains to be seen whether rules have been broken.

Speed cameras and photographers

So, the continuing stream of friends and colleagues of Tory ministers onto the Civil Service payroll continues, the latest being two of Dave Cameron's own - something that has angered even close Tory supporters.
This follows on from similar appointments made by other members of the Tory cabinet, which of course has resulted in some of the more unfortunate stories of the new regime.

What is so striking about this is that they don't seem to see the glaringly unfair situation that whilst the civil service undergoes a massive recruitment freeze and huge impending job cuts, Tory ministers think it's perfectly fine to not only bypass normal recruitment procedures but also to fill what should be frozen posts with chums. In an era of austerity, every one of these appointments potentially costs another person their job.

Why can't they see this? The answer is a particular facet of the Tory mindset, and is encapsulated in one object - the speed camera.

This particular (upper class) Tory mindset , of which David Cameron and George Osborne are prime examples, is simple...the law is there for one reason: to protect them (and their property) from others. The courts, police and prisons are all therefore a very good thing, catching thieves, arresting yobs and other undesirables and generally keeping order.

However, when the law encroaches upon their own liberty, that is a quite different matter. In some cases this can be avoidable.  Taxes, for example, can be sorted by a good accountant and an offshore bank account. Speed cameras, though, are a different matter. They affect everyone, and don't recognise wealth or background. Therefore, they are a relentless target of the Tory press. The same applies to congestion charges, traffic wardens and other aspects of traffic control.

It's this mindset that blinds these particular individuals to what many would see as a particularly unfair situation. Because when David Cameron talks about a recruitment freeze and job losses in the civil service, and when others talk about due process and fair and open appointments, it's all irrelevant, because these rules aren't meant to apply to people like him.

NICE neutered by Lansley

This blog has written before about NICE at length - and one of the central themes in the last post on the matter was the suggestion that Andrew Lansley was prepared to withdraw the ability for NICE to make enforceable decisions regarding the efficacy and cost effectiveness of medical treatments.

Well, after much lobbying from the pharmaceutical industry and the the right-wing tabloid press, he's done just that.

Until now NICE has had the power to make nationally-binding recommendations where there is uncertainty in the apparent value of a medical treatment. Not any longer.

These changes mark another step in this government's aims to fragment the NHS. With this fragmentation comes the acute danger that the balance of power will shift significantly in the direction of large private corporations, who don't always work in the best interests of patients - as recent experiences in the UK and US have demonstrated.

Needless to say, Big Pharma are happy.