Where to cut

The Canadians, we are constantly reminded, reduced Government expenditure by 20%, without serious social unrest. Since then there has been a trail of Tory strategists and philosophers to find out how they did it; and the answer has been ‘take the people with you’.

This has been the thrust of recent speeches by Cameron and Osborne, who yesterday called for the nation’s ‘brightest and best’ brains to offer suggestions.

I rather think that more than the nation’s brightest and best brains are required here so even I shall be offering suggestions. But in the meantime we have Simon Heffer in the Daily Telegraph to consider.

Heffer, from humble Essex origins, portrays himself as the highest of high Tories, although the result is more a permanently indignant Lady Bracknell. Think ‘outraged bluster’ and you are in tune for one of his articles. Heffer believes in nothing so base as consulting the brightest and best – the Government should just get on with it. And I think here the example of Prime Minister Edward Heath is significant. 1974 was the last serious occasion a Government put itself before the electorate with a detailed question; ‘Who governs Britain?’ Heath asked. It was the first time I voted and I remember clearly feeling ‘if you don’t know the answer to that you shouldn’t be in power’.

But I rather think Cameron is right here. A great deal of cutting has to be done, and it has to be done before the Government will be able to talk people out of their entitlement philosophy; that will take a generation. People are going to suffer a fair bit, and feel they are suffering a whole lot more.

Politically if Cameron can get a debate going it will be very advantageous. It will enforce his position as leader with the others following. It will silence the LibDems from saying something was a cut too far, and if they do would enable him to call an election, his position reinforced by the popular mood that cuts will come.

He may fail, as Labour’s ‘Big Conversation’ failed, but he should try.

For me the cuts should be gentle and continuous, such as not indexing tax thresholds for inflation, freezing public sector pay, welfare entitlements and pensions.

Trident will obviously figure large in the debate. It costs a fantastic sum, but against that is an international political badge of honour. Several countries in the next few years will be insisting on a permanent seat on the Security Council of the United Nations – Brazil, India, perhaps the Pacific nations led by Japan and Australia. Without a nuclear weapon we would be grouped as one seat with France or Europe. France will not give up its force de frappe so we would be the junior partner.

What I think we have to do about Trident is to show that there is no alternative. I, not being an expert, find it hard to believe that our needs wouldn’t be covered by a smaller, battlefield type nuclear weapon, and imagine this would be cheaper. Would it? I don’t know: perhaps Trident with its nuclear submarine force is the cheapest option. In that case it has to be explained.

Lastly I think all this is not enough. The government overspend, the excess of expenditure over its revenues, is £160 billion a year, every year. The Government has to get out completely of some of the things it is doing. In Health, Education, Transport, Military expenditure, pensions, a whole host of areas, the door must be opened and a little private sector light shone in.