Council tax freeze shows what’s possible

This will be a welcome respite for everyone hit by recession. No doubt sympathy for those whose pay or jobs have been affected by the downturn is a significant motive for councils' restraint. But there is a general election ahead and at least some councils are motivated by political considerations. Certainly, Labour councils took a collective decision last year not to raise council tax further lest it damage the party's chances, as well as to help residents in recession.

The downside, and the challenge for councils, is to try to ensure that they maintain the most critical services even while budgets are reduced. Most people will still want a weekly collection of rubbish and recyclables. It is critical that services for the old, especially the elderly who need help at home, are not reduced, and that children's services are retained. That will leave other areas such as leisure and libraries vulnerable to cutbacks. It will show councils' worth, when they have to choose between bureaucracy and services, if they make the right choice — but some cuts in frontline services are inevitable, and they will hurt.

Council tax freezes will be an opportunity for less efficient councils to blame all their reductions in services on budget restraint. Some councils are under particular budget pressure given the needs of their residents. All of them have had to cope with funding a disproportionate amount of the Government's increases in spending during the boom years, a sleight of hand that allowed the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown, to trumpet spending increases without funding the full cost from Treasury funds.

Still, if it is possible for some councils to freeze tax and yet maintain most services, it should be possible for the rest. Nor is this just a local matter. Central government faces even greater demands for cuts, given the public deficit. If councils can save money yet retain services, the lesson is that Whitehall can do the same.

Not so civil servants

The Public and Commercial Services Union begins a
48-hour strike today in protest at changes to their members' redundancy agreements. In common with other civil servants, the proposal is that redundancy payments would be capped, in their case at £60,000. Because union members include court and museum staff, customs, tax and emergency police call centre workers, the impact of the strike could be felt very widely, depending on participation.

Of course it is hard for public sector workers when the terms of their employment are changed retrospectively. Some of those workers are indeed on modest wages. But it is unacceptable for the union to claim that workers' terms and conditions, including generous pay-offs and pension entitlement, is some sort of recompense for their low pay relative to the private sector.

Nowadays, private sector workers not only have far less job security than those in state employment: their pay or hours have often been cut as a way of keeping their jobs. And their pensions are infinitely less generous than those in the public sector. Given all this, civil servants should be counting their blessings, not going on strike.

Oscar for the girls

Kathryn Bigelow's best director award at the Oscars is heartening testimony that the biggest-budget movie does not always win. And it's nice to score one for the girls.