Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Politics

George Osborne's every blow falls on those with less not more

87 replies

ttosca · 30/11/2011 22:17

With his autumn statement, the chancellor has declared class war: a Tory assault on the public sector and the poor

Class war, generation war, war against women, war between the regions: George Osborne's autumn statement blatantly declares itself for the few against the many. Gloves are off and gauntlets down, and the nasty party bares its teeth. Here is the re-toxified Tory party, the final curtain on David Cameron's electoral charade. No more crocodile tears for the poor, no more cant about social mobility or "the most family-friendly government" or "we're all in this together". Forget "vote blue go green", with this mockery of husky-hugging. Let the planet fry.

Exposed was the extent of pain for no gain, exactly as Keynesian economists predicted, a textbook case. Things are "proving harder than anyone envisaged", says Cameron. But precisely this was envisaged by Nobel-winning economists. Extreme austerity is causing £100bn extra borrowing, not less, while everything else shrinks ? most incomes (the poorest most of all), employment, order books and exports. Pre-Christmas shopping ? already discounted ? heralds more imminent company collapses, and the only high street growth is in pawnbrokers, charity shops and Poundlands filling up the black gaps. For all the flurry of small announcements to kickstart business, infrastructure doesn't create jobs fast enough to replace the 710,000 more public jobs to go. The iron envelope of public spending is unchanged. Osborne learns nothing from experience.

What was missing from his list? Not one penny more was taken from the top 10% of earners. Every hit fell upon those with less not more. Fat plums ripe for the plucking stayed on the tree as the poorest bore 16% of the brunt of new cuts and the richest only 3%, according to the Resolution Foundation. Over £7bn could be harvested with 40% tax relief on higher pensions, while most earners only get 20% tax relief; £2bn should be nipped from taxing bankers' bonuses, but the bank levy announced was nothing extra. There was no mansion tax on high-value properties, though owners don't even pay their fair share of council tax, and property is greatly undertaxed compared with other countries.

Worse still, two-thirds of properties worth over £1m now change hands while avoiding all their 5% stamp duty, by using offshore company accounts. But not a word passed Osborne's lips on tax avoidance and evasion. Another 12,000 tax collectors are losing their jobs while some £25bn is evaded and £70bn avoided. In a time of national emergency, Osborne had no breath of rebuke about the responsibility of the rich not to dodge taxes, no threat to curb the culture of avoidance. Despite the High Pay Commission report on out-of-control boardroom pay ? which even the Institute of Directors has called "unsustainable" ? the chancellor said nothing. How adamantly he ruled out the Tobin tax on financial transactions, called for by those dangerous lefties Nicolas Sarkozy and Angela Merkel.

Instead came the great attack on public sector employees on the eve of the biggest strike in memory. This was a declaration of open class war ? and war on the pay of women, 73% of the public workforce. After a three-year freeze, public pay rises are pegged at 1% for two years, whatever the inflation rate. That means this government will take at least 16% from their incomes overall. But the plan to abolish Tupe ? the rule that ensures public workers are not paid less if their service is privatised ? is outrageously unjust, and will lead to mighty resistance to all privatisation from senior as well as junior staff.

As bad is the plan for reduced public pay rates in poorer regions. What draws good teachers and doctors to work in hard places is the same pay with a lower cost of living. Cut public pay in the north-east or the most impoverished places and their economies will plummet, making them poorer still. This will drive a yet deeper divide between north and south.

But the direct assault on the poor is almost beyond belief. Watch how the big, powerful charities on Tuesday expressed uncharacteristic outrage. Along with the Children's Society, Save the Children is fiercer than I can ever recall, calling this "dire news for the poorest families ? both in and out of work"; "A major blow", says 4Children; while Barnardo's calls it "a desperate state of affairs when the government's own analysis shows that a further 100,000 children will be pushed into poverty as a result of tax and benefits changes announced today".

That 100,000 is added to the 300,000 that the Institute for Fiscal Studies already expected to join the numbers of poor children from Osborne's previous cuts. The increase in the number of two-year-olds getting nursery schooling is excellent, but why pay for it by taking from the tax credits of those families supposed to benefit? Households that gain are commuters, higher up the scale: few in the bottom 25% have cars or use trains. Meanwhile, the young are hit, the cut in the education maintenance allowance causing fewer to attend college at 16, and there are signs of a serious fall in university applications.

Politically, how will this feel? The outrage of respected charities is telling: worms are turning. The government has deliberately and unjustly provoked the whole public sector ? from headteachers to hospital cleaners. Cameron and Osborne's record for serious miscalculation is formidable ? from the economic effect of their austerity to their unravelling NHS debacle and the precarious work programme.

The gap between what they say and do is now exposed. The injustice of how the pain has been shared is breath-taking. A windfall taking just one year's bank bonuses would pay for all the cuts in youth services and the EMA for the next 23 years. That's just one example. Osborne is fatally wrong on the economy, as his deficit target slips by two years in just the past eight months. But even if his straitjacket were necessary, the pain would be politically acceptable only if justly shared. The Bullingdon budget tears the last veil of deceit, leaving the nasty party naked for all to see. But every school will get its King James Bible with Michael Gove's presumptuous foreword: is prayer all that's left?

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/29/osborne-class-war-autumn-statement

OP posts:
ElBurroSinNombre · 12/01/2012 22:30

Yes that is exactly what I am saying and the charts show it clearly. Why else did government borrowing increase in the early 90's if not because tax receipts were lower (because of the recession).

The chart that you are so fond of showing does not really tell the whole story. It would be more honest to show government net spending over the same period - that would show more clearly the different approach of the two parties and highlight the acceleration in government spending during the mid 2000s, which I think was completely unnecessary during an economic boom.

I don't doubt that the Tories are using the current mess to make a lot of ideologically based cuts on the back of it. But ultimately the blame for this lies with Labour's mismanagement of the economy.

niceguy2 · 12/01/2012 22:26

Hi Ttosca. How are you? I've missed your posts! Welcome back!

What we are both saying is factually correct but I fear you are not understanding my point. Let me start off by making a couple of definitions which no doubt you'll find insulting but bear with me as my aim is to explain it in a single post.

Deficit = How much we're overspending by
Structural Deficit = How much we're overspending by minus the banking crisis
Debt = How much we owe in total.

Got it? Great.

You are absolutely correct, both Labour and Tories have over the last thirty years practically always run a deficit. No arguments there, it's clear to see.

Is running a deficit a bad thing? Not for a short while. I'll probably be in overdraft a little bit this month thanks to xmas. I'm sure i'm far from alone. It'll be fine though because most months, I manage to save a little and it'll balance out in a couple of months. No biggie.

Imagine if I ran a little deficit each month for thirty years? Is that a bad thing? You betcha. Is it a big problem....you betcha.

Now when I say that the Tories handed over a balanced budget and therefore New Labour was solely responsible for the structural deficit, what I mean is that you can't pin the blame for the DEFICIT on the Tories. They weren't in charge. It doesn't matter what they promised or didn't promise...they were not in charge.

I'm not lying, I just think you are struggling to comprehend the facts.

The DEBT....that we cannot pin solely on New Labour.

ttosca · 12/01/2012 22:07

ElBurro

The point that the chart illustrates well (and has been mentioned by numerous posters on here) is that the Tories borrowed to pay for a recession (early 90s) whilst Labour borrowed heavily during an economic boom (mid 2000's). That is what was reckless about Labour's approach. I hope that I will not have to show you this 'several times'!

lol! Are you saying that the Tories have historically engaged in Keynesianism during recession years? You mean the exact opposite of what they're doing now? ;)

In fact, both Labour and Tory governments have run deficits since about 1950, whether during boom or recession years.

docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:77HPT93b0RYJ:www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn26.pdf+&hl=en&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjmGjuOSIu1LbnPKy5hQmQXofG0tkT0AVAfU96zevWKMdufhF6pv-Ya4jFi79IKTkclaG0ksn8gwIiCJT1yCZBE6YMuxN0FHiHlPDgl5QrlV9vaFt6ZqFkSvZerUOtVwAXP7KQ8&sig=AHIEtbQ8S4E9glGov-tjvubR84O0XJYf5w

As you can see (and read), in most years since the 1950's, the UK government (whatever team) ran a deficit of about 3%. It is the exception, rather than the rule that the UK ran a structural surplus.

OP posts:
ElBurroSinNombre · 12/01/2012 15:43

ttosca,

The point that the chart illustrates well (and has been mentioned by numerous posters on here) is that the Tories borrowed to pay for a recession (early 90s) whilst Labour borrowed heavily during an economic boom (mid 2000's). That is what was reckless about Labour's approach. I hope that I will not have to show you this 'several times'!

ttosca · 12/01/2012 15:03

Elaine

As I've shown niceguy several times, Labour aren't particularly unique in any way with running a deficit.

As this chart shows:

www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/oct/18/deficit-debt-government-borrowing-data#zoomed-picture

Both Labour and the Tories ran deficits most of the time whilst in office. The deficit shot up after 2008 due to the financial crisis, which caused a recession and loss of tax receipts.

OP posts:
ElaineReese · 12/01/2012 13:57

Labour always have to spend, to get us out of the holes the Tories leave us in. Years of cuts and slashing of funding have to be sorted out sooner or later, and Labour do it. Unfortunately if that coinicides with a global credit crisis, the Tories can seize upon the deficit as a way to justify their ideologically determined cuts.

ttosca · 12/01/2012 13:44

The jury's well out on whether or not the previous government got us into this

Erm.....obviously you are not using the same jury the rest of us are!

As Madhatter says. The Tories handed over a balanced budget and an economy just about to boom. For the first few years whilst Labour stuck to their pledge of sticking to Tory spending plans our budget was healthy.

Then they decided to rip open the nations chequebook and throw money in all directions. Tax credits, EMA. All funded not by economic growth or taxes but by borrowing.

Now sensible governments put money aside in boom times to spend during the recessions. But not Labour...GB had abolished boom & bust....He'd singlehandedly changed the laws of free market economics so he could keep spending!

Banking crashes aside, we'd still be in a massive amount of debt. The structural deficit, that's on Labour alone. The debt caused by the banking crisis. That's the fault of the banks ofc. The problems with the Euro? That's a problem caused by political vanity.

b niceguy-

Why are you still posting this garbage? Is it so important for your team to win that you'll keep posting lies in order to support them? Do you really have no problem lying to the public like this? How can you keep doing this when you've been shown the figures which directly contradict this whacky narrative of yours?

OP posts:
jackstarb · 01/01/2012 21:01

Julia - I agree, Brown was not directly to blame for the banking crisis. But where he went wrong was mistaking the 'credit bubble' for real economic growth and promising there would be 'no more boom and bust'.

To be fair - he wasn't the only one. After all - borrowing from the developing world to fund our western appetite for all the lovely cheap stuff the developing world wanted to sell us - what could possibly go wrong?

But now the party truly is over. And we have to [literally] work our way out. So, if we want to buy from the Chinese we need to sell to them in return.

JuliaScurr · 30/12/2011 18:52

Peston's 'The Party's Over' is very good if you want an accurate account. If you want to blame GB, not so good.

Peachy · 30/12/2011 18:38

Can't help wondering how much better off the world would be if people stopped bickering and instead focussed on how to prevent this crap whilst boosting the economy.

fluffyhands · 30/12/2011 16:51

Anyone who uses RT or Max Keiser as a "source" of anything to do with economics or markets is simply deluded.

He plays well to the conspiracy theorists but has little to do with reality.

bemybebe · 30/12/2011 15:15

RT is not just unbiased, it is actively twisting the truth to suit Mr Surkov's then current agenda.

bemybebe · 30/12/2011 15:12

Derailment? You provided "sources" - I am saying your "source" is crap. If you think "RT is a very good source of info for anyone wanting to find out about global affairs" you should switch to weaker weed.

VivaLaSativa · 30/12/2011 15:11

All news is biased. The BBC is biased, Sky news and ITV are also biased, Fox news, CNN, CNBC you get the picture.

Even the Indy and Guardian are biased, hence the vitriol spouted by lefties on their comments section, Due to not covering certain events regarding changes to the NHS, welfare reform and the like.

VivaLaSativa · 30/12/2011 15:08

That's off topic, or is derailment your intention?

bemybebe · 30/12/2011 14:53

If you were looking for an unbiased source of information - well done you!

Ah, and jews blew up the twin towers btw. According to RT!

VivaLaSativa · 30/12/2011 14:47

Now now ladies, lets not get our gussets bunched.

RT is a very good source of info for anyone wanting to find out about global affairs. It is funded by oligarchs, sfw?

Most countries run a deficit, Our government is actually making it worse, as highlighted by Max Keiser. That is the issue here and he highlights it brilliantly.

The op was about our government screwing the less well off in favour of the top earners. Its true. It is happening.

Glad I hit a nerve there with a few of you.

zubin · 30/12/2011 14:46

Interesting discussions - I don't pretend to be an expert on economics, my interest is in people and in protecting the things in this country that we hold dear. Of course the public sector needed an over haul - it was a monstrous machine that was unsustainable - the problem as I see it is that spending cuts (or austerity measures if you want to make it sound a bit sweeter!) have been imposed upon us by a group of people as far removed from the reality of the impact as it's possible to be. It's too hard, too fast, and yes the most vulnerable will suffer the most, those who can't do anything about their own situations, those that are dependent on the decisions of others to survive. There are alternatives to the harsh public sector spending cuts, changes that result in a lower cost more effective public sector but they take time. Who is to blame - who really cares? I think it was Benjamin Franklin who said Justice will not be served until those that are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.

bemybebe · 30/12/2011 14:29

"Stop reading red tops and you might actually find out the truth."
Amazing insight in the light of where you seek your "troof".

bemybebe · 30/12/2011 14:12

fucking Russia Today!!Grin
what is next - North Korea state tv channel to explain us (the ignorant) what is what? pmsl

ihatebabyjake · 30/12/2011 13:58

VivaLaSativa

Haha ... you don't really take Max Keiser seriously do you? He's a total charlatan and talks absolute rubbish. He is so good he gets a spot on a New Zealand radio show and Russia Today! Russia Today is a state owned news network not exactly known for being pro-US.

According to him JPMorgan should be bust if silver went above $47/ounce. Strangely, when silver did go above $47/ounce, JPMorgan didn't go bust! Unlike most banks, JPMorgan has produced positive profits each quarter, both before, during and after the crisis.

He's just another vested interest ... his interest is to panic people into buying physical commodities like silver bullion.

madhatter80 · 30/12/2011 13:23

VivaLaSativa, no, the banking crisis was not caused by Gordon Brown. However, even before the banking crisis, the UK was running a large deficit and debt, courtesy of Gordon Brown and the Labour party. He was very lucky that the banking crisis came along as it meant he could blame the bankers for all our economic problems (of course they are partly responsible) whereas the fact is that Labour's record of spending money we didn't have and not putting money away during the good times meant that the structural deficit was already huge before 2008. Sure, bankers bear a lot of the blame but in my opinion Brown and the rest of the Labour party are as guilty for our economic problems as the bankers.

Oh and I read a variety of sources from The Telegraph to The Guardian, but don't let that get in the way of the predictable left-wing smear of anyone that disagrees with them of being a red top reader.

VivaLaSativa · 30/12/2011 12:44

watch this

Peachy · 30/12/2011 12:31

Quite Viva.

And I find it quite amusing that posting recently that I was studying post grad (paid for before DH's redundancy so why nnot finish PT?) actually led to me receiving messages asking why should I be doing that (the MA closely ties to my boy's dx so obviously useful anyway).

I mean how dare those poor people try and drag themselves up!

VivaLaSativa · 30/12/2011 12:22

The global banking crisis was not caused by the last labour government. Stop reading red tops and you might actually find out the truth.

The global banking crisis was caused by banks like Goldmann sachs and JP Morgan, not Gordon Brown and the Labour Party.

Dumb people that are misinformed are definitely part of the problem. Propagating myths and helping to justify cuts to poor and disabled people whilst the top 1% get away scott free making even more profit during this global crisis.

Swipe left for the next trending thread