 |
| With the National Debt is still rising, will the Chancellor be able or willing to find some money to invest in essential services? Photograph: Pound Coins from Pixabay (License) (Cropped) |
Philip Hammond faces his first budget as Chancellor on Wednesday and he has a lot of pressure to handle. The overall Conservative promise to alleviate the country's debt is still a long way from started and there are spending decisions that Hammond will find it difficult to avoid addressing.
Funding plans for Schools, Social Care and Personal Independence Payments (PIPs) all indicate a troubling pattern of money being redistributed away from the poorest and most vulnerable areas that need it most - not an image that Theresa May, if she is to keep her promise of a Britain that works for everyone, will want to reinforce.
Schools, even those under financial pressure, face up to 3% in budget cuts. Social Care has seen billions cut from the system. And, Theresa May's government is trying to wriggle out of coughing up more money to cover a court-ordered expansion of the PIPs welfare programme.
How the Chancellor addresses these concerns is important. He has already done the press rounds in the past week to assert there will be no big spending and rolled out, the now standard Tory line, that problems are less the result of low funding and more of not following 'best practice' (BBC, 2017). But will that line be maintained through Wednesday?
On Schools, Hammond faces a situation that will be hard to explain away. The government announced plans for a new funding formula in December, that came with the less than reassuring 'assurance' that no school would lose out by more than 3% (Weale, 2016).
That is hardly going to offer succour to schools in poorer areas. As Andy Burnham (Bean, 2017), Labour nominee for Mayor of Greater Manchester, asked the Prime Minister in the Commons: how does the Prime Minister expect to get more working class children to university by cutting schools funding across the North West?
Meanwhile, Social Care has become the particular Tory baggage with which to pummel the government. With £4.6 billion in cuts since 2010 and shortfall predicted (Full Fact, 2016), it is about the hardest area for the government to argue that funding cuts don't make a difference.
In fact, the previous Chancellor George Osborne did begin to respond - but only with an, at best modest, increase in funding, that was planned to come in with this budget, but would only raise around £200 million nationally (Merrick, 2016; BBC, 2016).
The plan also does not actually involve a boost in cash from the government itself, but rather put it onto local councils to raise more in tax - up to 2% extra. However, the one, and particular poignant, flaw in this approach is that wealthier areas will be able to raise more for themselves than the poorest and most vulnerable who need it most.
Across Schools and Social Care, there is a very clear pattern emerging of money being withdrawn from where it is needed most to make tax savings for those from wealthier areas - simply, regressive economics.
That pattern is reinforced in the government's insistence upon not spending the extra £3.7 billion that an expansion of Personal Independence Payments, ordered by the courts, would call for across four years (BBC, 2017{2}) - less than a billion a year to take care of people primarily with mental health problems.
An aide to Theresa May was heavily criticised for his callous remark that funding need to kept to only the "really disabled" (BBC, 2017{3}) - for which he later apologised - but it summed up the Conservative attitude.
Under Conservative government, the services people depend upon in their everyday lives are being squeezed. Money is being siphoned out programmes that serve the most vulnerable and leaving them to find ways to fend for themselves - whether they're young, old or disabled.
There are rumours that the Chancellor will respond with a little more money than is currently planned (Kuenssberg, 2017). However, a lot more investment is needed to convince anyone that the government is moved by a real comprehension of the difficulties people actually face when the public services they rely on are disappearing.
References
'Budget 2017: No 'spending sprees', Hammond warns'; on the BBC; 5 March 2017.
Sally Weale's 'Thousands of schools stand to lose out under new funding formula: More than 9,000 cash-strapped schools in England set to lose further money under proposals unveiled by Justine Greening'; in The Guardian; 14 December 2016.
'Funding shake-up risks cuts in most schools, say unions'; on the BBC; 16 January 2016.
Emma Bean's 'PMQs verdict: Corbyn runs up against May’s dour display but backbencher exposes Tories’ crass Copeland tactic'; on Labour List; 22 February 2017.
'Social care funding'; from Full Fact; 14 December 2016.
Rob Merrick's 'Jeremy Corbyn blames massive Government cuts for social care crisis in clear PMQs victory: The Labour leader floors Theresa May by saying 'The Prime Minister does not seem to be aware that £4.6bn was cut from the social care budget in the last Parliament''; in The Independent; 14 December 2016.
'PMQs: Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May social care 'crisis' clash'; on the BBC; 14 December 2016.
'Reality Check: Is a £3.7bn cut in disabled funding planned?'; on the BBC; 27 February 2017{2}.
'Disability benefits: PIPs should be for 'really disabled''; on the BBC; 26 February 2017{3}.
Laura Kuenssberg's 'Spring Budget will not be a 'show fest''; on the BBC; 6 Match 2017.
No comments:
Post a Comment