The Ideology of the Spending Review

The notion that the cuts proposed by the tory-led coalition government are essential has been repeated so often that, according to one poll, 60% of the general public believe it. Yet looking at Wednesday’s spending review, there appears to be a clear ideology behind the plans which goes beyond mere necessity.

The overriding principal of the proposals outlined is the worryingly familiar passing on of central government control - ‘rolling back the frontiers of the state’, if you will. The welfare and pensions budget is due a brutal slashing of at least £18bn. Universal child benefit will no longer exist. The much-publicised assault on ‘scroungers’ will undoubtedly affect genuine benefit claimants, and it would be interesting to know exactly how the long-term unemployed are to be made to find work when none exists. The age at which state pensions will be awarded is set to rise, affecting the future plans of thousands. It is perhaps too cynical to point out that the areas which have been protected – winter fuel allowance and free bus passes for the elderly, for example – are the ones which Cameron was forced to pledge support for during one of the televised leadership debates.

The National Health Service may be ring fenced, but £20bn of ‘efficiency savings’ must still be found, almost certainly leading to job losses. Some key Conservative manifesto pledges such as free prescriptions for those with long term illnesses and a one week wait for cancer diagnoses have also been lost. There is also some speculation that cuts to local councils may lead to less social care opportunities in some areas, meaning that hospital beds are taken by elderly or disabled people unable to be discharged with no one available to care for them. The public sector in general faces huge cuts, with half a million jobs to go (including 20, 000 in the police) and private industry expected to pick up the pieces if the plan is to work.

In addition to this assault on the public sector, this shrinking of the state will presumably also include various responsibilities being passed on to local councils in the name of the little-understood ‘big society’. This is in spite of a 7.1% annual fall in council budgets which, as mentioned above, is likely to have far-reached consequences. The cut of 24 quangos includes the traditional tory disregard for the arts, with the loss of the UK Film Council, and the BBC will be forced to do more for less with the licence fee frozen and the World Service now among their responsibilities. Add to all this a 40% cut to higher education, predicted to lead to college and university closures, along with the soaring tuition fees, and no one escapes without suffering.

The comparison to Thatcher, at least in terms of opinions towards the state, is obvious. Yet Thacher had a clear majority, and a mandate to govern. Her government won power with manifesto pledges which were then put in place. Contrast this with the current situation; no one voted for a coalition, and the majority of the measures being taken did not appear in either manifesto. Effectively we have an unelected cabinet taking huge gambles with people’s lives. “We’re all in this together” has been stated nearly as many times as “it’s Labour’s fault”, yet the poorest ten per cent are due to suffer most, even based on the governments own statistics. Tokenistic gestures such as a cut to the royal family’s budget do not mask the fact that these measures will severely affect the opportunities of thousands.

On the Subject of Electoral Reform

On May 5th 2011, an extra vote will be added to those already due to be cast in the local, Scottish and Welsh elections – a referendum on electoral reform. In November, this branch of the Fabian Society plans to host a debate on the same issue. It therefore seems a reasonable time to examine the implications of this change to the Commons voting system, should it be passed.

We currently elect members of parliament using the first past the post system – a simple single vote per constituent, and the candidate with the most wins. Numerous criticisms have been levelled at this system, such as the fact that a candidate does not require a majority of 50% or more, merely the highest number of votes. The same applies to the country as a whole – a party can potentially gain power with the highest number of MPs, but not the majority of votes cast. It can therefore be deemed somewhat undemocratic. Under the current system, there is also the problem – not least in the Merseyside area – of safe seats, where many of the votes cast are effectively wasted as the same party will inevitably gain a huge majority each election. Although those in favour of retaining this system have long argued that it creates a stable government, the outcome of a hung parliament and subsequent formation of the coalition government this year surely discredit the certainty of that argument. However, FPTP does have the advantage of retaining a strong link between MPs and their constituents, and also of being relatively easy to understand.

The change proposed in the referendum would lead to the use of the alternative vote system for Commons elections. This retains the link with the constituency, but instead of casting a single vote the electorate rank the candidates in order of preference. The winner requires a majority of 50% or more, and if this is not achieved initially then the one with the lowest number of votes leaves the contest and their second votes are reallocated until it is. Though slightly more complicated, it cannot really be called that much more trying than FPTP, and it does fix the problem of MPs gaining power without the majority support of their constituency (though not parties entering government without a country-wide majority). The emphasis on second preferences would certainly favour smaller parties, not least the Liberal Democrats.

If introduced, AV could potentially lead to more coalition governments in future, and therein lies a problem which can be illustrated by the referendum itself. A proposal for a referendum on electoral reform was not in the manifesto of the Conservative party, who won the most seats in the Commons under the current system. It was a pledge of the Liberal Democrats, who came third. It is therefore true that a majority of the country did not vote for this referendum, and yet it is being imposed. Coalition governments involve a lot of compromise, as we are currently witnessing, and ultimately it may transpire that no one gets what they voted for. Although we currently have a coalition elected using FPTP, the history of this system shows that this is rarely the outcome.

There are of course many other forms of voting system which are not currently being considered for use in general elections. Many still argue the benefits of proportional representation, although it seems unlikely that any of the major parties would introduce a system which would almost guarantee them losing much of their power. With the Conservatives formally opposed to AV, and Labour also likely to advocate the ‘no’ vote, it seems unlikely that this referendum will achieve its aim. However, the debate over whether it is time to alter the voting system seems set to continue indefinately.