I’m slightly ambivalent about some of the campaigns against cuts, partly because I voted for a party which would also have made cuts, partly because the campaigns against them have become a focus for far-left posturing, partly because I don’t have any expertise in economics. But it’s important to keep on pointing out the impact of various cuts on people’s lives – needy families in times of crisis, disabled people trying to enjoy activities most people take for granted, children and others who will be denied access to a decent library service.
Most recently we’ve heard about cuts to the fire service. Many are anxious about the impact this will have on the service’s ability to operate effectively, and have asserted that lives may be lost because of these cuts. I won’t quote from these more vocal critics, but from someone who seems prepared to try to work with the cuts, yet still clearly has anxieties about what may happen.
Lee Howell, vice president of the Chief Fire Officers Association, said: “We will be operating with fewer staff, but that does not necessarily mean an impact on public safety.” He said savings could be achieved through “innovation and creative thinking”, such as combining back-office operations. But he added: “Some services are already very efficient and will find it difficult to find further efficiencies.”
It might be argued that such cuts are painful but necessary, and that the net negative impact, even on the poor, would be worse if they weren’t implemented. But it is hard to buy the ‘painful but necessary’ argument in the light of Tory cheers when the cuts were announced.
