Commentators

null 11° London Hi 21°C / Lo 12°C

Mark Steel: Cut this nonsense about whose cuts are most 'savage'

Suddenly, no party thinks it can be serious unless it pledges to cut

How have we got to a point where all the major parties try to win votes by boasting who's going to take most things away? Nick Clegg brags that the Liberals' cuts will be "savage", as if he's taken lessons from Ray Winstone on coming over hard, and his conference speech went: "Now watch my boat race and listen. If I see anyfing that can be cut – I'm 'aving it. Know what this is? It's a dialysis machine. I've gone down the hospice, seen this ol' geyser, bop bop bop bop, done 'im, out with the ol' plug and wallop. Now it's out the national debt, 'cos I'm Savage Clegg."

After that Labour will announce that the blind should fund their care by making their guide dogs fight each other to the death so a far-East betting company can post the contests on the internet.

Then Cameron will reply: "I am prepared, if elected Prime Minister, to go up to someone suffering from Alzheimer's and personally charge them for their care, and then go back the next day and charge them again, knowing they'll have forgotten they've already paid. THAT is the type of measure required to fill the gaping hole in Britain's finances."

Gordon Brown will tell us that the real reason for the barring and vetting scheme is that anyone who fails the check will be invited to bid for running after-schools clubs, providing much-needed private revenue for public services. The army will be told they'll no longer be provided with armoured vehicles in Afghanistan, but this won't curtail the movement of troops as they will be entitled to a free Oyster card covering zones 1 to 4 of Helmand Province.

All of a sudden, no party thinks it can be taken seriously unless it pledges these cuts. Tomorrow, there'll probably be an announcement from al-Qa'ida: "We can reveal that our updated spending plans will save £18bn to the prison service, by creating a series of centralised stoning centres for maximum efficiency. In addition, the long-term unemployed will be required to find work or explode, and in place of the current benefits will receive a Paradise Seeker's Allowance."

The cost of a midwife could be passed to the baby in the form of a long-term loan, inhalers could carry adverts, nothing, they all say, can be "ring-fenced".

Now the Liberals have joined in with this, presumably their party political broadcast will go: "We're sick and tired of this country being run by two squabbling parties that are basically exactly the same. What Britain needs is THREE squabbling parties that are basically exactly the same."

Some Liberals, to be fair, seem slightly uneasy with this new message. So Menzies Campbell said that while they would no longer propose to abolish tuition fees, the main thing is they still ASPIRED to promise to abolish them. It must be marvellous to live in that world. You could support Hamilton Academical and celebrate all night, telling people: "I never believed it would actually happen, but today we aspired to beat Barcelona."

And their health spokesman sheepishly offered to find the proposed cuts in the health service by "eliminating waste". But they all say this, as if there's a "waste" department in the health service, where the manager will proudly explain: "This is Jimmy, his job is to spend all day buying rowing machines and onion-chopping devices from infomercials, then put them in the lift without ever getting them out of the box. Amanda here spends hours down the arcades putting the budget in the machine with a claw that can't possibly pick up the teddy. Phil here replies excitedly to random emails from Nigeria, we're getting through ten million a day."

But they are all afraid to make the obvious point, that in the period in which this vast debt was created, while some layers of society got a bit worse off and some got a bit better off, it was the richest one per cent whose wealth grew to an unprecedentedly colossal scale. But, somehow, the rest of us will have to pay for that.

These politicians would make the worst detectives in the world. They could see film of a bank robbery, with the robbers announcing on television: "We did it, because we're bloody well entitled to it," and they'd yell: "I know who did this crime – firefighters. Let's get down there and nab them for it."

Or maybe Ed Balls assumes that it was people working in the public sector who caused the problems. Perhaps he heard of schools in which the kids would be told: "Er, hello, I'm Mister Armthorpe, your supply teacher. Your normal teacher Miss Williams can't be here today as she's had to nip to the city to lend 300 million quid to an insecure Kuwaiti investor so I'll be taking you instead. Now, have we got as far as Anne of Cleves?"

m.steel@independent.co.uk

More from Mark Steel

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Anne of Cleves? Who's she then?
[info]ironspiderzero wrote:
Thursday, 24 September 2009 at 06:50 am (UTC)
Sorry, can't think straight for laughing! But it's a melancholy laughter given that all the above is true. NuLabour have put the UK's taxpayers into hock to ensure their friends in big business don't miss out on their bonuses and that the shareholders still receive their dividends. I'm a public servant in the nature conservation sector, so my job is under threat twice - once because of the cuts to public spending and again because, whichever party is in power after the next election, the environment will become an expensive option and government won't want to upset big business by enforcing any green initiatives.

Why are the taxpayers in this country required to bail out the banks that can't do maths and industries that aren't competitive? Why do the taxpayers have to suffer cuts to the services they've already paid for so top management and shareholders can keep raking-in the profits? Why do taxpayers put up with a corrupt political system designed to benefit those in power? Why do taxpayers put up with a welfare system designed to most benefit those who don't feel the need to participate in providing for society as a whole? Democracy? Or what used to pass as democracy... We once had the 'mother of all parliaments', now we have the mother of all f**k ups...
Re: Anne of Cleves? Who's she then?
[info]frankofyle wrote:
Thursday, 24 September 2009 at 12:58 pm (UTC)
It all seems fairly straightforward to me. The INTENTION is to cut back on the pay and conditions of ordinary workers, specifically for the benefit of the rich.

Take all political parties harping on about the pensions in the public sector. Is this just an excuse so the private sector can cut its pension provision? The BBC have run with this a couple of weeks back, citing Barclays Bank as one organisation that was considering doing it ... the report coming at virtually the same time as another report of Barclays �3.3 bn six month profit! Hardly a case of them being unable to afford it then (yet no questions asked by the BBC - how strange!). The other sample given by Auntie was one of our massive supermarkets, who by coincidence had also reported enormous profits that week!

Now we have Corus threatening to do the same, despite having "one of the most profitable pension schemes in Europe", for which the company pays only 12% towards each employers pension, not the vast percentage reported by politicians, reporters and the companies themselves. And of course, Corus now belongs to one of the richest men in the entire world!

There's something very queer going on here. And it all seems aimed at making the rich richer, and the rest of us to compete with the slave wage earners of India and China.
Cut along...
[info]philydog wrote:
Thursday, 24 September 2009 at 10:28 am (UTC)
As part of the 90 percent of people now being asked to pay for the further enrichment of the remainder, it's difficult not to share Mark's indignation. But if you cut the sarcastic scenarios there is very little of substance in this piece. I would like to know, for instance, if Mark has any positive ideas. By the way, proposals to cut the Fire Service were first mooted at the height of the boom. Then along came three more... at Aldgate, Russell Square and Tavistock Square.
Re: Cut along...
[info]ourmaninferney wrote:
Thursday, 24 September 2009 at 10:44 am (UTC)
You appear to have misunderstood Mark's role. His role is to highlight, preferably in a humorous manner, the stupidity, crass greed, incompetence etc of our so-called betters. And he does it superbly. He's a humorist, not a politician.
Re: Re: Cut along...
[info]philydog wrote:
Thursday, 24 September 2009 at 12:16 pm (UTC)
I may well be, as ourmaninferney implies, a bit thick but stating the bleeding obvious interspersed with a few schoolboy parallels does not, in my opinion, constitute humour but I acknowledge his right to disagree. Personally, If I want that kind of thing I find I can get it in a more convivial forum down the pub.
Re: Cut along...
[info]victorbabs wrote:
Thursday, 24 September 2009 at 12:49 pm (UTC)
The only thing is a large proportion of the population are unaware of all which is highlighted by Mark and which is clear to you and I. If they did know these things there would be far more public indignation and the Tories would not be on their way to winning the next election. It is a bittersweet article humorous yet depressing haha.
Re: Cut along...
[info]tominlondon wrote:
Thursday, 24 September 2009 at 03:59 pm (UTC)
er, that should be "clear to you and me". Terrible grammar.
We're stuck with the cuts - the real scandal is failure to address the causes of the problem ...
[info]john_b_ellis wrote:
Thursday, 24 September 2009 at 03:30 pm (UTC)
Not much choice but cuts, as far as I can see.

Things that, as a nation, we might have contemplated affording have now become cloud cuckooland. After the election - because parties are too afraid of the electorate at this point in the electoral cycle to present us with a range of gory options now - whichever government gets into power will start to prune the things that we previously could afford. It's some sort of refreshing honesty that they're even acknowledging in general terms the reality of future cuts - at last, now, even Mr Brown.

Because, even for a government, there's a limit to what can be borrowed. Or can be extracted from suspicious lenders. Or, even more to the point, to what can be repaid. And there's a limit, particularly in a recession, to what can be raised in taxation. And what the nation's not got, it can't spend.

And Mr Steele is right; it's not got it because it's doled out incomprehensible and unimaginable sums to preserve financial institutions from collapse. Much of it borrowed money, which will need to be repaid, unless governments are prepared to forego the option of borrowing in the international markets in the future.

Nothing wrong with cuts, then - they're inevitable. But then, alongside those cuts, a wise, far-sighted and ethical government would also look to the causes of the the present troubles and, as far as it could, order things in such a way as to minimize the risk of repetition - even if that caused discomfort to influential segments of society.

The real scandal is that it hasn't - and, whoever gets in next time, it won't ... Which makes me wonder whether our much-vaunted democracy really amounts to much.

Columnist Comments

john_rentoul

John Rentoul: The real story is Ireland, not Brighton

Party conferences are all very well, but they are not always closely related to life on this planet

janet_street_porter

Editor-At-Large: Harassed to death – why did no one listen?

Her story is so distressing that it makes me wonder what kind of neighbours lived in her street

dom_joly

Dom Joly: Conkers, my secret weapon in the war on spiders

Apparently it's going to be a bumper autumn for spiders. Oh dear!


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion