Public Sector Cuts, the Second Front.

Speaking about public sector cuts is all well and good, but up until now it's been big-state spending thats been for the chop. However, the government have missed a trick: what about the amount of waste that goes on in local government?

Its all well and good cutting central funding, but what happens of council tax goes up to make up the shortfall?

Some legislation needs to be put in place to prevent this sort of action. I've had enough of councils funding one-armed lesbian refuges. Right now public sector spending should be concentrated on absolute essentials: the things we can't live without. and nothing else. I'm sick and tired of these wastes of money. I've said it before and I'll say it again: I used to live in an area of Lancashire with a large Eastern European immigrant population: refugees from Hitler and Stalin. People who fought against such tyrrany alongside our own troops. Did they demand community centres to sustain their ethinc identity paid for out of the public purse? No, they didn't. They got together and paid for it themselves.

Thats the way councils and central government alike should be operating:  essential, front-line services should be ring-fenced, but the dross, the non-essentials, the services that should and could be paid for by local voluntary subscription should be cast aside.

Cameron's Cuts...

David Cameron sounded less than convincing today when he talked about cuts. He's talking that politician's language that not all of the population understand. He really needs to simplify in order to get people to move in his direction.

For instance, we had the bald statistic that government borrowing is up to 700 billion or something and if we don't get the deficit down it'll double to 1.4 Trillion. (See, even I wasn't paying that much attention). What he needs to do is explain the reason why we need to get the debt paid now: Explain it in terms we all understand: a loan. We all know that paying off a loan quicker is better in the long term. I'm sure quite a few people know that paying off the minimum on a credit card bill only means you end up paying more in interest payments. So why doesn't Cameron explain it in those terms: suffer the pain, pay the loan off quicker, then instead of paying billions to the banks in interest over the years (in effect dead money we can't use), we can use that money to fund hospitals, schools, etc. Explain if we let it climb to 1.4 trillion, the interest payments alone will amount to several hospitals, schools, kit for soldiers and lots more besides.

I'm sorry, but like all politicians he's talking too high and mighty for the population to understand. If he doesn't explain to them in terms they understand, get them on-side and get them to follow him, there'll just be resentment across the whole country and the swingeing cuts necessary will not be accepted without a fight.

I'm ambivalent towards Margaret Thatcher, but one thing she was very good at was being able to speak in terms the ordinary population understood. Cameron espouses marketing speak: paradigms, opportunities.... the waffle that says nothing of substance. He really needs to rethink his speechwriting strategy. And soon.