Mike Causey – Wrecclesham and Rowledge
Waverley Borough CouncillorArchive for Finance
Money, Money, Money
It’s been a big few weeks for virtually every UK resident. The results of the Comprehensive Spending Review have been published, following many pre-emptive policy announcements with financial application:
The removal of child benefit for those earning over £45,000 pa (see yesterday’s blog post)
Lord Browne’s reporting on higher education detailing proposals to allow much higher tuition fees
Reduction of tax free saving amounts
One has to recognise that these things add up to serious pressure on some family’s budgets, but I’m weighing this up against what I believe to be the rightness of these actions.
We have serious political leaders for serious times, and for immensely serious decisions. And they are tackling our difficult finances whilst also addressing fundamental ideological questions of how the state should raise money, provide education, or encourage personal fiscal responsibility.
Thus, when I see the hysterical reaction of union leaders and others reported in the papers, upon hearing the words of IDS about the need for job applicants to be prepared to get on the ‘bus’ to find work, I am incredulous. You see, my rule of thumb about getting offended goes something like this:
If the statement doesn’t apply to you, then don’t get offended – it wasn’t meant for you, and you should be confident that your own actions are good and right.
If the statement does indeed apply to you, then likewise don’t get offended – either get on the bus (or any other mode of transport for that matter) and look for work, or don’t. Choose.
I.e. why get offended at all?
Exasperation kicks in for me when I hear union leaders denounce such sensible words from our leaders. Complain about the bus services themselves (which I am sometimes tempted to do), but don’t completely miss the point of the words – that we should all be prepared to go the extra mile to either find work in the first place, or pay more tax or receive less benefit in the second.
Family Planning
Cutting child benefit to those that earn more than £45,000 pa has made the headlines this past week and the response has been extremely critical if the media is to be believed.
Firstly, however, I don’t believe that it is the state’s role to pay citizens for having children. In fact, I might even go so far as to agree with our MP Jerermy Hunt’s comments on Newsnight recently, emphasising the responsibility of parents to undertake family planning that doesn’t assume that the government will pick up responsibility for choices that they cannot fund.
In any case, on principle I am pleased that this benefit has been reduced in breadth, and do wonder whether it shouldn’t go further.
Secondly, £45,000! That’s a lot of money. I have to confess to being surprised that a family having this much income can’t budget for not receiving child benefit. It’s about priorities. If one has to give up a tv licence then so be it. Or the holiday abroad. Or whatever.
Thirdly (and I realise that this will, if it hasn’t already, become a tired excuse in many people’s view), the parlous state of our nation’s finances have given the current government no choice but to take tough decisions. As it happens, this one is closer to the ideological position of the party than some.
In summary, this is a right decision. I’m certain that there’ll be some ways in which the implementation of the rules could be better (and I’m not yet clear on what the truth is about whether it’s a household income level or individual), but it’s in the right direction.
At last
I’m delighted to read in today’s Telegraph that George Osborne will be giving the cross-party Treasury Select Committee the right to veto his candidate for chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility. I hope that this sets a new tone for ministerial appointments: that being a minister does not isolate that MP from the need to ensure House support for key appointments outside of the democratic process, and yet critical to the governing of our country.
Annexe 1 to Appendix A
It’s worth browsing the papers for the special Executive meeting taking place this Friday at Waverley Borough Council. The meeting’s main purpose is to review council officers’ advice on how the recent emergency budget and subsequent announcement are likely to affect the council budget in coming years.
[Click here for the meeting’s agenda and papers, especially Annexe 1 to Appendix A]
Let me immediately say that I for one am not expecting our officers to crystal ball gaze any more accurately that members and so I read the report assuming a great deal of latitude and in a spirit of collaboration rather than confrontation.
And it does make for interesting reading. One is left with an appreciation of the challenge it is to yet work out exactly what the budget means. How should we interpret the high-level commitments to percentage cuts, and translate the language of a ‘progressive’ (George Osborne’s word) budget into hard numbers so that we can plan for the coming years?
Here are some highlights:
If cuts relate solely to Revenue Support Grant, the impact will be between £192k and £308k grant reduction by 2014/2015p
Up to £180k lost potential revenue assuming a 2% increase in council tax for 2011/12 if no Government
In Waverley the Chief Executive’s pay is around 8 times the salary of the lowest paid staff (less than half the Government’s maximum)
National Insurance: Additional cost of £43k pa from 2011/12. Approx £30k falls on General Fund and £13k on HRA
Proud to be BP? Yes.
Although it’s simply horrible to comprehend what’s happened and still happening in the Gulf of Mexico, I continue to be proud of the way in which BP is urgently and comprehensively grappling with the oil spill and continued leak from the well drilled by the Transocean rig on its behalf. It’s inspiring to see and know such unrelenting work being done by so many to bring the disaster aftermath under some control and, at virtually any cost, prevent the landfall of the slick and the resultant coastal damage. I’m immensely proud to be part of a company that has so many skilled and dedicated employees.
In this same week, we have learned from the FT and then other papers that a market index (STOXX Europe Christian) has been launched, claiming to be the first one of its kind. Run on Christian values, it eschews shares of companies have too much a share of revenues from trades in weaponry, birth control and pornography amongst other things. It includes BP, Shell and Rio Tinto among the top ten stocks.
However, I’m not yet quite convinced. I would need more information about the composition of the committee that chooses these shares and, the rules that they’ve agreed to follow, as this would clarify the interpretation of ‘Christian values’ that has been used. And, as my wife pointed out to me, the way in which this index has been reported seems to indicate it is focussed on “Thou shalt nots” rather than “Thou shalts” of the Christian faith. Is that really a way to ensure the very best corporations are included, or more a way to prevent the very worst? The methodology factsheet from STOXX does seem to indicate positive selection also, but I couldn’t really find exact detail.
I suppose I’m at least delighted that oil and mining companies are represented, as I know that they can be easy targets for those looking for fall guys of the business world.
KLOEs
I’ve been reading the Annual Audit Letter from the Audit Commission, for the audit of Waverley’s 2008/09 year and, being a consumer of similar documents in my professional life, I can say that I’m pleasantly surprised by its clarity and concise nature.
I’m reading it in anticipation of the Chairman’s briefing for Audit Committee in a few week’s time, which, with this meeting’s agenda, forms just a small part of the 150ish pages. I do enjoy it though – I find it the meeting where I can most use the skills and capabilities I bring from other walks of life and, find that inevitably the audit findings being discussed cover all the critical service areas of the council and thus provide a great opportunity to cover most issues of importance.
What I could do without though, is the additional three or four letter acronyms that I’m constantly having to learn [KLOE: Key Line of Enquiry]!
