The 'Boys' will no doubt get off lightly in tomorrows budget, whilst millions of public sector workers will be facing a steep rise in their pension contributions in order to help pay down Britain’s record deficit. In addition, the 'Boy' George Osborne hinted yesterday that the already announced public sector pay freeze will last longer than one year.Civil servants will be expected to pay hundreds or even thousands of pounds more each year into their pension pots, as the era of early retirement on so called "generous payments" is brought to an end. (Note: the average civil service pension is £4,200)
A new government commission, led by John Hutton, the former Labour defence secretary, could recommend that public sector staff begin paying more towards their retirement as early as next spring.
Furthermore, on the issue of the expected cuts, the following blog item by George Eaton at the New Statesman is very interesting:
How cuts will hit the poorest hardest
In recent weeks Nick Clegg has attempted to reassure voters over the coming cuts by promising to deliver what he describes as "progressive austerity" and by vowing to prevent the creation of a new north-south divide.
But new research by the Financial Times shows just how unrealistic and disingenuous this promise is. The analysis looked at how different regions of the country would be affected if social security benefits were reduced by 10 per cent and if public sector areas, excluding health, were cut by 20 per cent.
It found that the poorest areas would be disproportionately hit on both measures. For instance, benefit cuts would see household income in west Wales and the Welsh valleys fall by 3.6 per cent, compared with a drop of less than 0.5 per cent in inner London. Areas such as Northern Ireland, the north and the south-west would suffer the greatest fall in income, while regions such as the home counties and London would suffer the least.
Since public spending follows need, it is the poorest areas of the country that are most reliant on the state. It therefore follows that across-the-board spending cuts will hit them hardest. The Tory minister who, in a rare moment of honesty from this government, recently admitted, "those in greatest need ultimately bear the burden of paying off the debt", was spot on.
The danger to the poor is magnified by the coalition's decision to rely on spending cuts, rather than tax rises, to plug the deficit. The government's deficit reduction plan envisages a 4:1 ratio of spending cuts to tax rises, rather than the 2:1 split favoured by Labour. By comparison, during the last big fiscal tightening undertaken by a Conservative government, Ken Clarke split the pain 50:50 between tax rises and spending cuts.
Targeted tax increases on middle and high-income earners offer a progressive alternative to spending cuts of a size not seen in the post-war era. But those hoping Clegg will make this argument around the cabinet table will be disappointed. In an interview with the Spectator before the election, he pledged to reduce the deficit through cuts alone, a position that put him to the right of David Cameron.
So it's not that Clegg has been "turned" by the Tories -- he was never a progressive to begin with.
