The Guardian has reported this morning that:
Government cuts to the police “may have encouraged” violent offenders and have “likely contributed” to a rise in serious violent crime, leaked Home Office documents have revealed.
There is, of course, denial. As they also report:
The documents cast doubt on claims by the home secretary, Amber Rudd, on Sunday that cuts to the police were not to blame for rising violence.
And:
Home Office statistics show the number of police officers fell from 143,734 in March 2010 to 123,142 in March 2017.
I am not seeking to make a party political point here, but since the Conservatives have been in office since 2010 it will most certainly seem that way. I am explicitly making a political cultural point. This is that evidence is now ignored.
We saw it first with policy, where we got policy based evidence creation to justify specific causes of action. Most especially we saw supposedly evidence-based claims that levels of public debt had to be curtailed as a means to justify austerity. Now we see the inverse, which is supposed evidence denial of policy consequences.
We have it in the NHS, where supposedly there is no crisis. It's just staff failings that mean the systems can't cope.
We clearly see it here in the police.
It's also happening in social care, prisons, the court system, schools and beyond.
But still the claims flow. Most say ‘we have spent more'. And often this is true. But only if taken at face value. I did some work on this with Ronen Palan in 2015. Using Treasury actual and forecast data we showed this:
The forecast comparing to GDP if there had been no crash is important: it makes the point that the demand for healthcare, policing and other services continues whether we had a crash, or not. Either way, spending was forecast to be cut heavily in relative terms even if the total spend was to increase:
And the impact was going to be noticed because this was actual and planned spend per head:
Anything where there was discretion was planned to fall drastically per head, and it has. And it is pointless to pretend that this has no impact.
It impacts those running these services, who are told they are of decreasing worth.
It impacts those delivering these services as they face impossible demands.
And it impacts those receiving these services who know they are getting worse outcomes.
All three were inevitable, as those who campaigned against austerity (which has never been necessary) pointed out all along. And now we see the impact. Lives, for a start, are being lost, on the streets and on hospital trolleys. But lives are being wasted far more widely, and unseen.
But reliance on inappropriate data will be used to deny this. Spend is going up it will be said. So that's all right then. Except, spend is not going up. And demand is growing, both because of increasing population and precisely because of cuts creating their own stress.
The truth is austerity has not worked. It cannot work. And there is no alternative to the wealth creation that strong public services delivers. It's time all politicians began to say so.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
There’s surely got to be a tipping point when the fabric of society becomes so dysfunctional that the ‘average voter’ joins up the dots and starts listening to an MMT-inspired narrative. Regrettably, until the Palma ratio’s middle 50% really starts to hurt, the Neo-lib TINA mantra will continue to hold sway within both major parties. Logic tells us it’s only a matter of time, but seems like an eternity.
Austerity makes absolutely no sense other than to its perpetrators in order to gain and retain political power. If Corbyn’s Labour Party has any shred of integrity it must stop pussy-footing around and state both unequivocally and repeatedly that, if elected, it will govern the nation according to sound fiat-currency principles and not this prevailing dangerous ideology. Even if he never wins a GE then at least he will be on the right side of economic history – as (to his credit) he has been on many international issues.
I’m not sure that ” the Neo-lib TINA mantra” does hold (private) sway within the Labour party (well possibly with the Blairites – a diminsihing minority). That said trying to explain even simple economic realities to the voting population is proving to be an uphill struggle after close to 40 years of nonesense such as
“There is no such thing as society”
“The state has no source of money other than the money people earn themselves” (yes Thatcher really did say that)
“Get on yer bike”
“we will help strivers”
“we will help the just about managing”
& it is not just the not-so–well-informed general population that is the problem. One of my friends was Delors personal adviser on EMU – he vehemently disagrees with even the non-contentious MMT stuff (e.g. govs’ spend first and tax later) – I guess you would call him a dinosaur economist.
“The truth is austerity has not worked. It cannot work.”
True enough, but the problem in part is that austerity has been a non event for the financially insulated decision makers and policy gurus. Utterly painless to them ‘nothing to see here – what’s the fuss about ?’
Austerity has been targetted as precisely upon those least able to cope with its depredations as the bailouts and economic recovery has been targetted on those who needed that help the least. (once the immediate problem was fixed).
Its a bit odd this one. Traditionally, Conservatives have always found the money for police and military regardless of the cuts they have made elsewhere.
Well, they’ve screwed up this time where the police are concerned. Such a totally unnecessary own-goal for the Tories as well. Politically, Labour really need to seize the opportunity with this one. Politically, its a gift.
Speaking of own-goals and political gifts. I didn’t have time to read your blog 3 days ago when you posted that piece about gender pay data and the IEA:
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/04/06/the-gender-pay-gap-data-works-well-which-is-precisely-why-right-wing-think-tanks-dont-like-it/
The comments for that post are closed but looking at just now I couldn’t help thinking that it might be an idea if some the equal opportunity-supporting journalists and editors at the BBC as well as other broadcasters and news publishers were made aware of Mr Jessop’s notable views on the subject.
It might give them cause to reconsider any assumptions they might have about the IEA being a reliable and authoritative source. I know that the IEA doesn’t make quite the same pretense of impartiality that the IFS does but they have nonetheless “shown their true colours” (as you put it) and wouldn’t hurt if certain people saw what those colours really are.
It got on the front of the Guardian – but still no one asks why
Sounds good, I missed that Guardian edition. I’ll go back and have a look.
For the party of law and order there is a total acceptance of rising crime. The Government clearly accepts and tolerates increasing white collar crimes and waves of dirty money parked in our capital. Violent crimes are also tolerated on the streets as police forces struggle to contain it in the face of falling resources and those resources being switched into other areas such as counter terrorism and away from other crime. Like unemployment, crime affects a small but growing proportion of our society and so Governments can largely ignore both until the point that the clamour of news organisations put them in danger of losing power. Many crimes are driven by inequality which is also tolerated by free market ideologues. The Conservative Party and its cheerleaders in big business and finance have denied the value of social services in our society for decades insisting that unregulated markets will raise everyone. It is clear this is not the case. Without a properly funded system of communally provided services societies will become more unequal and chaotic with those lucky enough to be positioned at the top exploiting that position at the expense of the rest. The wealthy will pay for private health care, private security and insulate themselves from public dangers. Society and the economic benefits should be for all not the privileged few.
As Marco says it is very odd that the current Conservatives have neither money nor time for the police (or military). It chimes with the ‘no time for experts’ of Brexit fame.
Is it an indication of the overweening arrogance before comeuppance and fall?
I think it is – and would be. Except I find myself agreeing more and more with Simon Wren-Lewis’s repeated railings against the prevalence of a prejudiced, right wing press and the consequent supineness of the BBC, failing to ask correct, or sometimes any questions. So we still remain in the territory of telling lies often enough that they are believed.
The situation still remains an open goal for Labour – not just the leadership.
At least Sadiq Khan has made a start by saying that in the local elections Londoners have choice between investment in services or “more social vandalism”. But I doubt the press will bother with it.
How exactly will Sadiq Kahm or any of the local councils achieve more investment with Government continuing to make cuts to LA grants? False promises are not helpful.
AliB says:
“How exactly will Sadiq Kahm or any of the local councils achieve more investment with Government continuing to make cuts to LA grants? False promises are not helpful.”
I couldn’t tell you ‘exactly’ how, but a devolved Holyrood Government has managed to hold back the tide of neoliberal destruction for ten years.
There might be some useful pointers there. Scotland has, perhaps more powers at its disposal than the Mayor of London, but is only allowed to function within the very restrictive terms set out by a Westminster government.
And what it has achieved has been against an absolutely constant avalanche of media hostility. A positive ‘shitstorm’.
Just one current example: (And don’t forget this is a continuous daily barrage from MSM and includes the BBC which in Scotland is widely and increasingly despised with considerable justification.)
The Scotsman ( colloquially known derisively as the ‘Hoots mon’) Reports an 80% success rate in government promoted smoking cessation as a failure. Go figure.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/health/smoke-free-scotland-goal-stalls-as-one-in-five-fail-to-quit-1-4718056
And this is today’s offering brought to us by Wings
https://wingsoverscotland.com/just-plain-lying/
I kid you not, this is a relentless barrage of deliberate distortion. Sadiq Kahn will have to get used to it. And so will the population of London. Ken Livingston lived with it for years.
Andy Crow says: [the Hoots Mon] “Reports an 80% success rate in government promoted smoking cessation as a failure”.
And the BBC in Scotland, picking up on violence and knife crime in London and other English cities pairs this tragedy with reports of ‘meanwhile in Scotland the number of exclusions from school for assaults using ‘weapons’ is the highest it’s been for five years.’ As one of the most trenchant critics of the BBC tweeted, “Why place two completely different issues side-by-side?” (G A Ponsonby)
Fortunately, we have a blogger who each day gives us several good news stories about Scotland and sets the record straight regarding the most blatant misreporting. (John Robertson’s https://thoughtcontrolscotland.com)
But this, to my mind, raises an important question about evidence, truth and honesty. At the weekend we had Johnson calling Corbyn “the Kremlin’s useful idiot” – an egregious smear – then we have Labour deriding and ridiculing the idea of a new party – forgetting that they reinvented themselves a mere couple of decades ago and were founded as a new party largely by the Union movement just over a century ago and hey presto reinvented themselves again a couple of years ago.
It seems that politicians can lie if they want to, can choose or misinterpret or ignore or deny or invent or be partial with evidence that supports their political dogma or if it scores a point over the opposition. And none, or very little, of it is ever subjected to scrutiny by most of the press or an independent authoritative body with the standing of, say, the ONS (who do occasionally issue rebukes) And so the public have to fall back on bloggers, if they can find them and if they can trust them.
We need a more mature and intelligent political debate, that treats the public as capable of understanding well argued complex issues and politicians of a philosophical persuasion who are committed to truth and honesty and not simply parroting the party line. But given our dysfunctional political set-up I cannot see how there is going to be an outpouring of truth and honesty over austerity and the wealth creation that investment in public services would bring.
I love first sentence of last para
Curiously I have been in discussion with someone in the States this pm well known to many on this blog: she would agree, I think
Peter May says:
“Is it an indication of the overweening arrogance before comeuppance and fall?
I think it is — and would be.”
Yep, pride before the fall or so it would appear. Generally speaking I wouldn’t worry about the press so much, a little but not too much.
For me the most significant (arguably most significant) take-away I got from the last GE was the complete impotence of the Daily Mail and others of their ilk. They had their foot flat to the floor and were stunningly exposed as ineffective.
Looking at it objectively and academically, the decline of overt press power in recent years has been rapid and exponential, especially the tabloids. Even those that saw it coming are stunned.
Looking abroad, in Australia the big news yesterday was that the conservative federal govt. there lost 30 consecutive polls (despite receiving wholehearted support from the Murdoch media which has a near monopoly on newspapers). This was big news because the current PM came to power in a leadership challenge after his predecessor lost 30 consecutive polls – despite wholehearted support from the Murdoch media.
I am not saying all this be positive or optimistic. This is how it is now and for their part the conservative press are lowering standards and becoming more biased in an attempt to compensate for their impotence. I am surprised that so many British people are still so bothered by them. I suppose the change takes time to adjust to.
G Hewitt says:
‘ At the weekend we had Johnson calling Corbyn “the Kremlin’s useful idiot” ‘
Why, was he playing tennis with the wives of Putin’s ministers?
Oh no, hang on, no that was the Kremlin’s useless idiot, wasn’t it?.