On Tuesday there was a debate in the House of Commons on the subject of Police Funding. One of the comments that came from the Government in the shape of Nick Hurd, the Minister responsible for Policing and Fire and Rescue was in response to a question from Clive Efford, the Labour MP for Eltham:

The hon. Gentleman simply articulates the problem with the Labour party: year after year and decade after decade, the answer is always more and more money with no understanding of where it comes from. There is no such thing as Government money—it is taxpayers’ money. The only way to increase investment in policing, which is what we all want to do, is to either increase borrowing or increase taxation.

There is partial truth in such a statement, but one important element is missing. If any Government wants to spend more on any area, along with the options of increasing borrowing or taxation, they could instead reduce spending in other areas. However to do so depends on the Government doing something that is this Government is clearly unwilling to do which is explain how much things cost and then asking the public to help make decisions accordingly. It seems very disappointing that Hurd was willing to speak about Government spending taxpayers money when it comes to his department, but not when it comes to other areas of expenditure. Governments of course need to manage income and expenditure, but offering local people the option to pay for one or two items, whilst pretending that the rest of the economy is running well and not open to discussion, is clearly deeply flawed. There is huge expenditure in other areas of the Governments activity that the public have either had no say in, or are being denied the information they need to make an effective decision. However rather than come clean with this information, the Government has carried out a huge philosophical U turn.  As Clive stated at the beginning of his short statement, “I have never heard so many Tories come into the Chamber and welcome a council tax increase.”

If a week is a long time in politics, then 4 years is an eternity, however back in February 2014 Eric Pickles explained on BBC Radio Four’s World at One programme about his views as a Minister on the cap on Council Tax rises “I would have preferred a threshold of 1 per cent but I was quite willing to compromise on 1 and a half. But 2 per cent I am quite relaxed about.” However as this Telegraph report explains, ‘blocking the rise the Lib Dems said that a cap of 1.5 per cent would have “devastating” consequences for council budgets and local services; however Conservatives hit back saying their Coalition partners were showing a “complete disregard” for taxpayers.’ Yet the majority of Councils are now being forced to raise Council Taxes by as much as 5% or even 6% to pay for policing and Adult Social Care and Nick Hurd is apparently quite relaxed about such an approach.

So back to the areas where spending is out of control, it seems that the cost of Brexit is huge and of course if the Government still has the support of the public, once they explain how much is being spent on our preparations, then Nick Hurd’s suggestion may well be the right one. This is why the lack of analytical information on Brexit is so concerning. This Government that led us into a referendum based on lies and exaggeration has then had over 18 months of time to cost out and predict how Brexit will impact the nation. Yet as we now know they have done little more than a Wikipedia level of research. There will be other areas of potential re-allocation in the hands of the Government. To ask us to agree to spend a few pounds more each month on policing without disclosing what else the Government is spending our existing taxes on is at best manipulative and at worst entirely dishonest.