Morning Call: pick of the papers

The ten must-read comment pieces from this morning's papers.

1. Michael Heseltine's on the right road – so who's going to take it? (Guardian)

The Treasury must hate the maverick former minister's report, but it should realise his ideas have deep Tory roots, says Martin Kettle.

2. The coalition can’t keep facing two ways at once on public spending (Daily Telegraph)

Agreement on reducing debt between the Conservatives and Lib Dems is vital if the government is to make it through to 2015, says Peter Oborne.

3. America Decides (Times) (£)

President Obama has lost the campaign and his record has many holes, says a Times editorial. But he has done enough to earn a second term.

4. The Commons has spoken for the nation on the EU (Daily Telegraph)

The time has come for Britain to take a stand against the profligacy of the European Commission - real-terms spending must be cut, says a Telegraph leader.

5. New York’s ascent meets the rising ocean (Financial Times)

The city is not the only global economic hub at the mercy of climate change and rising tides, writes John Gapper.

6. Britain must atone for its sins in Palestine (Daily Telegraph)

Ever since the Balfour Declaration of 1917, Britain has denied our people their rights, says Nabeel Shaath.

7. Who profits from being in care? It's not the children (Guardian)

Dumped in areas cheap enough for contractors to make a decent return, it's little wonder 'cared-for' children fail to thrive, writes Zoe Williams.

8. The tragedy of Britain is the lack of a governing class brave enough to make big decisions (Daily Mail)

Democracy shouldn’t mean buckling into noisy minorities selfishly defending their corner, writes Stephen Glover.

9. How to improve life for the 'squeezed middle' (Independent)

The onus is on the politicians to act – or explain why they will not, says an Independent leader.

10. Banking may lose its allure for the best and brightest (Financial Times)

The really stark relative shrinkage of finance might lie ahead, writes Gillian Tett.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Autumn Statement 2015: a test of competence as well as compassion

George Osborne's chickens may be coming home to roost.

The debate will be political and polarized, as you’d expect, when the Chancellor sets out the results of the Spending Review tomorrow and how his £20bn of savings will be realised. However my suspicion is that while many followers of the Westminster's circus are debating what it all means for compassionate or compassionless conservatism, the public will be more interested in a more straightforward question: one of competence. 

Strip away the hyperbole and the election in May was won on an assessment of which party was the more competent to govern. A huge part of the public’s judgment in this regard was to trust the track record of the Conservatives in balancing the books and that the £20bn in departmental savings earmarked was a reasonable and responsible ambition. 

This is the question in point because what the public did not endorse explicitly was significant change in the size and role of the state. The argument was made and won for a budget surplus, not necessarily for its consequences. As Paul Johnson of the IFS has been at pains to say after every recent budget.

We should acknowledge that one of the reasons the Chancellor does have the public’s confidence is that the cuts to public services so far have not been as damaging as many opponents predicted. The NHS is under-strain, but has not broken. Hard pushed local government leaders have managed to shield social care from the worst of the changes, and the majority of police officers lost were in the back-office not on the beat. So when pollsters ask the public whether they have noticed the effects of austerity, most say they haven't. 

Understanding what the implications are of further large reductions in areas in the firing line such as police forces or local government is hard to do. So the government has told the public "trust us". Now we are going to find out how well that trust was placed. The point is this though - if the public haven't yet felt the full affects of a smaller state they may not be so tolerant it if they do. That brings us to the Chancellor’s real test. The easy cuts have surely been made, after the long years of spending increases prior to 2010 you would expect the system to be able to tighten its belt. But with five years of austerity under that belt there is a risk that the additional cuts could push services too far. 

The public were told that £20bn of saving could be achieved without the kind of pain that will be felt if social care for the elderly really starts to fall over, if police officers become significantly more scarce, or if the NHS does need much more than the promised £8bn (as many believe it will). On this point they have trusted the Chancellor to understand the implications of what he is promising. So if the policy choices in the Spending Review turn out to show that he did not, it will be the Government's competence as much as its compassion that will concern the public.


Steve O'Neill was deputy head of policy for the Liberal Democrats until the election.