Back in October there was a reminder of the Tory party we all remember, when they launched their tax plans. Sort of. It was more or less a list of all the taxes they could cut. Sources close to call-me-Dave came out to say that of course they wouldn't actually do anything until the economy was stable, but you sort of imagined a Cristiano Ronaldo-style wink to the the old guard of the party.

The proposals included such fine measures as abolishing stamp duty on shares and inheritance tax and a cut in business tax – all measures which the council and housing association tenants of Broadfield South have been crying out for obviously.  I bet there is even some sort of trickle-down theory justification behind it all.

But that's not what I want to write about.  That is just a reminder of the basic Tory attitude: cut taxes and then try to balance the books and worry about the impact on services later.  Us in the Labour party are always accused of wanting to increase taxes of course, with the whole argument presented as a simple case of opposites, but I do not think it is as simple as that.  I am only speaking personally, but I don't actually like taxes and don't like paying them.  However, I do like a stable society which generally is kept that way by services provided by the state and local authorities.  My motivation, and I hope it is shared by the Labour movement, is to see that services to society and particularly to those most in need are provided, and if that provision means that the tax levels can't be reduced then I will resist the reduction in tax.

The important distinction is that the motivation is provision of services and tax levels follow from that, while I see the motivation of the Tory party as being primarily about tax levels, or rather about tax levels for that segment of the population which is predominantly Conservative. The now-infamous £21 billion of tax cuts is just an indication that the thinking is still the same, and experience in councils where the Tories have taken control show us what that sort of thinking means in practical terms.

Here are a few examples:

The first is from Croydon in early November, where CroydonLife writes about the new Tory council's cuts to arts funding, cancellation of an eagerly-awaited new swimming pool, £16 million cuts in services to children, the elderly, and the disabled, with a 10% cut in funding to the voluntary sector in the pipeline. 

A few days later there was this post from cllrfay in Swindon, telling a similar story of cuts to grants, closures of children's centres and the closure of a theatre.  It ends with an open question from trade unions to Tories about how much they intend to cut services by.

The final example is from last week, where Paul Macmanomy writes about redundancies at Walsall council – the Tories' new year gift to their staff – where "re-prioritisation" will lead to a reduction in street sweepers and drain gulley cleaners.

I have been braced for similar events in Crawley, with a slim hope that Marcella Head's own personal re-prioritisation might delay cuts for a bit.  Just like everywhere else the cuts to our services will not be called that. They will be called re-prioritisation, rationalisation, re-alignment, re-profiling, streamlining or some other suitable euphemism.  Staff will not be laid off, but will be downsized, right-sized, lost by natural attrition or something like that.

I heard that the local Tories said they were not intending to make significant cuts at all, and in the same breath talked about reducing staff numbers by something like 10%.  Now either they have identified 10% of the staff who are doing nothing, or decided that everyone is only working at about 90% capacity, even after many years of gradual efficiency measures, or there will indeed be some cuts to services. 

Last year I went to a few public meetings of the Broadfield Forum and the Sussex Police Authority and watched the 'State of the Borough' debate on the Internet.  In these meetings I kept hearing the same things that I are always heard at such meetings; that people felt their area was untidy and unkempt, that there was too much vandalism, that grass was not cut often enough, that we need more care taken with local heritage.

The list went on, but every single issue that was raised had one thing in common: there was not one problem bothering the people of Crawley which could be solved by someone saying "we will start spending less on that immediately".  How many problems are there which can be solved by spending less on them? 

I think this is a question which needs to be asked at every opportunity.  Every time a Tory councillor mentions an issue raised with them by a constituent, or at public questions, we should be asking them how cutting the budget will help to resolve it.  Every time a reduction in funding or staffing levels for a department is even hinted at we should be asking how the service will be improved by that cut in resources.

Of course it would be even better if we could come up with a catchy form of words for that question that can really drive the point home.

So far we have not seen the effects of the Tory financial philosophy in Crawley. So far all we have actually seen is increased expenditure or plans to spend more on such things as expenses for trips to Holland and Liverpool, producing a DVD for every council tenant, changing the council's logo to something more blue, and delaying the ballot for stock transfer.  Some of those are small amounts, but they all add up and all increase the pressure to cut services.

Some of this is starting to filter through to the public consciousness, but will enough people realise it in time?  It will be too late after a future general election when a mother complains that, for example, the local Sure Start centre is closing, and she is told not to worry because at least there is no stamp duty if she wants to sell some shares!

At the last Broadfield Forum a resident asked about increasing the police presence near his house and the Inspector there started to talk about the costs involved. The resident cut him off and said "just send me the bill. I can afford it. Put an officer in my street full-time and I'll pay his costs." Well that was the gist anyway, and I assume the chap was being rhetorical.  I wonder if that man would be willing to pay a few pence a week extra in council tax, income tax or whatever instead of paying a lump sum of thousands for personal protection – because that is what the balance between taxation and spending boils down to.

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want to live in the sort of place where the middle-classes live in gated communities, paying for private security, health, waste collection, street cleaning of their compound and so on, but are justifiably afraid to step outside those gates – even (or especially?) if I am one of those middle-classes.  Ok, that is an extreme case, but I do know people who have lived like that in South Africa and other places, and I dislike anything which increases the trend in that direction.  Ah but I am rambling now…  lets just finish by re-iterating the big question:

Which Crawley council services will be improved by spending less on them?  Which problems will be solved by spending less on them?