ON YOUR BIKE!...You First, Iain

So we've already had the massacre of the budget out of the way, we know the big stories behind it and what is facing the cuts. I don't think we need to go over already well-trodden ground. But IDS, the artist formerly known as the Quiet Man, has eschewed his right to silence by announcing what could be the most idiotic move since the Budget.

The Telegraph writes:

'Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, discloses the move in an interview with The Sunday Telegraph in which he outlines proposals to make the workforce “more mobile”.

..Mr Duncan Smith, the MP for Lord Tebbit’s former parliamentary seat of Chingford, disclosed that ministers were drawing up plans to encourage jobless people living in council houses to move out of unemployment black spots to homes in other areas, perhaps hundreds of miles away.

The former Conservative Party leader said millions of people were “trapped in estates where there is no work” and could not move because they would lose their accommodation'

Now, let's ignore the human cost of thousands if not millions of people upping sticks to move hundreds of miles to places they have no links or roots, no common familial or historical ties. Let's ignore the idea that the people living in these 'economic hotspots' might take exception to these large numbers of newcomers arriving in their town or city and increasing competition for housing and pay. Let's ignore the idea that people like living in certain areas because they have a history and family in the area. Let's also ignore the fact that the Tories are treating the unemployed simply as a faceless economic statistic without any intrinsic humanity. Let's deal with the economics of this idea, the flaws in simply getting people to move to area where the employment situation is much healthier.

Firstly, if this is really applied on a big enough scale, all it will do is hurry along the deaths of already struggling towns and cities. It's common to see and hear about the unemployment in 'the great Northern cities.' Indeed, what IDS is proposing is very similar to a report released 2 years ago by the Policy Exchange, whereby

'Cities in northern England such as Liverpool, Sunderland and Bradford are "beyond revival" and residents should move south, a think tank has argued.'

The problem with this is that with a large departure of people, the increase of ghost towns up and down the country is all but inevitable - the fear of creating 'economic blackspots' becomes a self-full-filling prophecy.

The second problem with this idea is that it is a cripplingly short-sighted one. Who's to say that those areas which are thriving currently will always stay that way? When there is an economic downturn, no one is sheltered from it barring the very rich. And as long as capitalism continues to exist these crises will be a common fact of life, the never-ending cycle of boom and bust. There is no assurance that areas will remain forever-prosperous, and should a future economic disaster hit these areas while this scheme is in place, you can bet there WILL be tensions between the old community and the new arrivals.

There is also an issue with how this policy would actually be implemented. It is implied that this is a strictly voluntary exercise for people in order to get them out of deprivation, to 'incentivise' leaving for better opportunities. But what if people refuse this offer? What if they choose to remain in the blackspots? If nothing was to happen to them, then there is really no point in having the policy. If the benefits of these people were to be cut, you exacerbate the problem you had in addition to undermining how 'voluntary' this scheme really is.

The policy is extremely 'abandon hope all ye who enter', (longstanding Tory motto since 1979) the solution being to simply move somewhere better. It wouldn't be an easy thing to accomplish, but what's wrong with attempting to fix these areas of economic disadvantage? Would it not be possible, ney, preferable to rebuild some form of productive industry in these failing areas? Could we not embark on a major public works programme, or create more of these green jobs we were promised in 1997? Is this not a worthy thing to aim for to save communities from destruction, early death and high rates of both drug addiction and violent crime? ...No, best move to Oxford, the proles will learn their place very easily there!

THE DEFICIT

You know that thing in the title? That odious, mysterious, omnipresent thing that we're supposed to hide the kids from? That giant economic monolith that we've been told won't go away until the nice men in the suits hack at it with giant axes? Well...

Britain's budget deficit came in lower than feared last month, the latest indication that the public finances are over the worst of the financial crisis.

The government borrowed £16bn in May, below last year's £17.4bn and less than the £18bn expected by City economists.

Encouraging stuff, right? Well...

"The big picture of course is that borrowing remains extremely high and additional measures to reduce the deficit will be required in next week's budget," said Vicky Redwood at Capital Economics. "Indeed, the government appears keen to act sooner rather than later, yesterday announcing additional spending cuts from the cancellation of pending projects. We expect tax rises and spending cuts adding up to perhaps £20bn per annum to be announced next Tuesday."

Marc Oswald of Monument Securities said the picture painted by May's data "to a certain extent looks rather better" than the OBR had assumed. However, analysts do not believe it will deter Osborne from announcing hefty cuts next week.'

No one should be surprised by this - so far, so Tory. Curious, though, that Osbourne and his coalition partners have proposed some measures which might be considered quite foolish when attempting to deal with THE DEFICIT. Measures such as cutting corporation tax, at a time when we are told that the cuts 'will effect all of us,' recognising marriage in the tax system and convering the employers' contributions to National Insurance payments.

What's interesting is how the deficit hawks have monopolised the narrative, not only in this country but throughout Europe as well. Germany, Spain and Ireland have all embarked to some degree on manic budget cuts. Jose Barroso championed Cameron & Co.s austerity programme as, 'exactly the right medicine". All of this in order to appease the markets. The markets were the reason we got in this mess in the first place, in the form of the banks. The markets are a wild, irrational animal out for blood and self-preservation - considering every economic crises that has preceded it, what sane individual would listen to it now? But getting back to the original point - alternatives to a programme of cuts are not even allowed into the public discourse, being largely the refrain of those on the political fringe. The idea that maybe there needs to be state subsidised growth is complete poison nowadays - partly as a result of the hangover from neoliberalism, partly as a long running enmity toward public sector services on behalf of the Tories. They did as much damage as they could in the 1980s - they're now back to finish the job.

The false dichotomy of public vs. private is shown up to be a crock - cuts in the public sector will negatively impact the private sector as well - but don't just take my word for it, see what this notoriously pro-Lefty organisation has to say:

'Britain's leading employers' organisation warned today that the economy's sluggish recovery from its deepest and longest post-war recession will see unemployment rise and consumer spending squeezed. In its quarterly health check, the CBI said that a temporary pick-up in the pace of growth this spring would fade as cuts in public spending start to bite.'

When even the CBI is looking a bit nervous about the size of the cuts on the table, you know something is very, very wrong.