The new means test

The excellent Simon Jenkins has an acerbic piece in today's Guardian, listing examples of conspicuous government waste that are continuing unbridled despite the economic and fiscal crisis. His chief object of scorn is the 2012 Olympic Games, which he claims will fully absorb all the revenues from higher fuel, alcohol and tobacco taxes announced in this week's budget, but he also has harsh words for the Trident missile replacement, NHS computer scheme and other trophy projects. In maintaining its commitment to the Olympics, Jenkins argues that the Government is showing that it fears the IOC more than it fears the IMF.

He's right about all this (and maybe it's not too late to do something about Trident, at least), but I doubt if cutting out this sort of high-profile extravagance will be enough to set the fiscal world to rights. Things that people actually like and value are going to have to come under scrutiny as well. Let me cite an example. I'm bemused to think that I am about to become eligible for the ultra-populist "winter fuel grant", designed to help older folk to keep warm in the colder months. The Chancellor made a point of bragging that the grant would be maintained at its current level for the coming year, even though fuel prices are now much lower than they were in 2007, when the grant was boosted as an emergency measure.

I'm sure it's cynical of me to suggest that the government doesn't want to upset pensioners, who have a high propensity to vote, when there's a general election little more than a year away. But is it really necessary to have a separate programme for this purpose? Should the money really go out to everyone above the age of 60, regardless of need? I, for one, am happy to admit that I don't need the money (and neither, I might suggest, do the large numbers of seniors I saw spending hundreds of pounds on plants at the garden centre yesterday!)

There are all kinds of social programmes like this one that serve mainly a PR function ("see? your government cares about your chilblains") and would benefit from much tighter targeting. Yes, that implies some sort of means testing, but right now it's the government's means that are being tested, and choices will have to be made.