Cameron Gaffe

In an interview with Jeremy Paxman, David Cameron has made the first big gaffe of any of the leading contenders in the election campaign. Having said that Public Spending accounts for too much of the economy, in parts of Britain, Paxman asked him which parts. Cameron cited The North of Ireland, where it accounts for 68%. But Paxman then taxed him on other areas such as the North-East where the percentage is similar. Wales and the North-West where the Tories were hoping to take seats from Labour are not far behind.

As Paxman pointed out, given the Tories plans for spending cuts this year, this must mean large job losses in these areas. Already, the Northern Echo has picked up on this and run a headline to that effect.

Cameron says state spending must be cut in North-East. Tory candidates in these areas, already now under pressure from the rise of the Liberals, cannot be best pleased. There was already rumbling of dissatisfaction in the ranks about the way the campaign was going.

What it does show also is the problem that all bourgeois governments now face. State spending in total is so large, the number of people employed in, and dependent on, the state so great, and the power of the top echelons of the State so extensive that any attempt to seriously reduce it is fraught with danger. Not only do such cuts threaten a public backlash, such as that now being experienced in Greece, but the simple threat of such attacks may simply make those proposing it unelectable. Even if they overcome those obstacles the simple power to frustrate, by that State, means that any Government, seeking to undertake such a course of action, would require something approaching a Political Revolution to achieve it. As an example of that, just look at the failure of even Thatcher to accomplish any serious reduction in the power and size of the state.

As I have said before, anyone who has worked in the Public Sector knows how this works. In Local Government, when cuts are demanded, the first response of the Chief Officers is to propose a list of important frontline services, knowing that Councillors will baulk at that prospect. Then they propose a series of less important frontline services, especially if the areas of the leading Councillors can be protected. Often its accompanied with proposals for some "restructuring" of Departments, to better fit the new level of services. In this restructuring, those Chief Officers wanting to take early retirement can be made redundant and gain immediate access to their pensions. As recent press reports have shown these pay-offs are far from insubstantial. I was told recently that one Chief Officer from my old Council was given a pay-off of £400,000, and this is a Council that has less than 500 employees, that has sold off its housing stock, and shed most of its functions!

As Departments have become larger, in the restructuring, those left in place gain pay rises to reflect their added responsibility. In short the paper "savings" are rapidly swallowed up by the bureaucracy. Frequently, a few years later, its suggested that the restructuring didn't work, and Departments need to be split up. Of course, no reduction in salaries accompanies it, more Chief Officers get to retire, and a raft of second tier upper management get promoted into the new positions. Of course, the Chief Officers don't have to rely on their £40,000 plus pensions, because they are also frequently invited back as Consultants!

Yes, we certainly do need some new politics, yes we certainly need a thoroughgoing democratisation of the system, but it will require something way beyond what any of the Parties are currently proposing.