You know things have come to a pretty pass when a term like "progressive austerity" come into use, especially when an egalitarian (?) think tank originates it. See this 21 May 2009 Financial Times piece by Richard Reeves, head of Demos. Excerpt:
Second, progressive austerity means giving the public sector more
than just a hard squeeze. The principal lesson from Canada – where
spending was cut by 10 per cent in the mid-1990s – is that whole
budgets, agencies and departments should be axed. The default
assumption in spending rounds is that money will continue to flow
towards an activity. Expenditure must address a clear need, through
demonstrably effective policies.
Much of the quangocracy that has sprouted under Labour will fail one or both of these tests. Regional development agencies, sector skills councils and the communities and local government department should all go. Any agency with the word “improvement” in its title could probably disappear without discernible negative effects. Middle-class welfare should end. Child benefit should be abolished. Subsidised higher education ought to be targeted at low-income students.
Comments