Government

It’s public spending time again, dear CoffeeHousers, with a couple of eye-catching articles in  today’s papers.  The first is a comment piece by Steve Bundred, chief exec of the Audit Commission, on the necessity for extensive spending cuts.  If you recall, Bundred claimed a few days ago that health and education shouldn’t be ring-fenced from cuts, and here he repeats the point, adding a snappy conclusion: “So don’t believe the shroud wavers who tell you grannies will die and children starve if spending is cut. They won’t. Cuts are inevitable, and perfectly manageable. We should insist on a frank and intelligent debate about how and where they will fall, which

Steve Richards’ column in today’s Independent – analysing Brown’s u-turns on the Post Office, 42 days and the abolition of 10p tax rate – is superb. As Steve notes, all these u-turns have in common the question of where does Brown stand in relation to Blairism; is he break from it or its continuation? Steve’s conclusion sums this up brilliantly: “The U-turns show that Brown has never acquired a clear voice of his own as Prime Minister and has failed to break away from his complicated past. Perhaps an early election would have liberated him from the manacles. Instead, we are left with a trail of major reversals that convey

With Brown shifting his position on spending by the minute, it’s worth highlighting this snippet from today’s Guardian: “Treasury ministers, in particular, believe they can look at whether there will be a need for cuts at the time of the pre-budget report in the autumn. They intend to use the report to show the scale of projected future savings, as well as how frontline services and new priorities can be protected by switching resources. Labour still believes the Tories have made a political mistake by committing themselves to public spending cuts so early.” It rather supports Fraser’s prediction that, following all their talk about “envelopes” and “projections,” the Government will