Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

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:
breadandbutterfly · 03/12/2011 00:02

Great article; thanks ttosca.

Esp this bit:

"the poorest bore 16% of the brunt of new cuts and the richest only 3%" - despicable.

anotherglass · 03/12/2011 00:12

Eh, wot about the extension of free childcare places for 2 year-olds to poorer families. Must be worth about £3k a year. Still an assault on the poor?

AnnieLobeseder · 03/12/2011 00:17

anotherglass - that's a feeble crumb tossed to the poor to say that the government 'cares about them' while their lives are ripped to shreds around them.

I feel so impotent and so full of rage. Seriously, what can the average prole do about any of this?

anotherglass · 03/12/2011 00:22

Spare me your sweat soaked kerchief please Annie. 3k extra for childcare support is a pretty bloody good deal, especially for those on very low incomes with families. It doesn't go through the tax system so is a clean saving. Yes, it is not fair that we all have to pick up the tab for the excess of the fin serv industry and a weak and ineffectual regulatory system, which allowed risky behaviour to go unchecked, but give this initiative its due.

AnnieLobeseder · 03/12/2011 01:02

Sorry anotherglass, this one tiny good thing amidst so many crushing blows is too little, too late and of no help to the vast majority of people who are being made redundant/losing DLA/losing their pension etc while the fat cats carry on regardless. It's one drop of good in an tidal wave of bad, so I fail to see why I should get remotely excited about it.

anotherglass · 03/12/2011 01:13

Fat cats? Mind your language. You might give the impression that actually putting a lot of effort into a project either as an employee or self employee and building yourself up is an affront to society? Wastrels, tossers and the morally vacant are not exclusive to any one class. I object to your paternalistic tone that the poor are suffering passively, that individuals are not in charge of their own destiny.

anotherglass · 03/12/2011 01:16

Do you think that everyone is deserving of your righteous anger?

anotherglass · 03/12/2011 01:17

There are tossers in all walks of life spend your energy not on the good fight but the savvy fight.

youngermother1 · 03/12/2011 01:34

What about the fact that the previous government got us into this mess? They ran a deficit, borrowing from the future, during the longest boom we have ever had. If they had not increased public sector spending by 50% in 5 years and paid down the debt, then we would have a lot of extra money to play with.
After a party, cleaning up is needed - the longer and more drunken the party, the worse the mess. Nobody likes cleaning up, but necessary.

breadandbutterfly · 03/12/2011 09:18

Increased public spending by 50% in 5 years - source for that rather unlikely claim, please, youngermother?

As has often been said, it was not the poor that spent the huge amounts in the good times - our debt levels now are down to bailing out the banks. Personally, I didn't benefit at all in the 'good' years from the banks' gambling - see no reason why I should be paying for it now while the uber-rich get huge bonuses, pay no stamp duty on their million-pound plus properties etc etc.

Disputandum · 03/12/2011 10:31

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism claims here that the public sector wage bill rose by 29% 2005-2010 (and the top 3% saw their wages rise by 64% over a decade).

Local government spending increased by 53% over the decade from 1998 - hilariously this led to very little improvement in services with 10% of councils performing at lower standards in 2008 than they had been previously.

So the poor may not have 'spent the huge amounts in the good times' but we all pushed for (or turned a blind eye) to huge increases in spending that served little purpose I would say.

AnnieLobeseder · 03/12/2011 12:03

anotherglass - The poor are in charge of their own destiny? Tell that to the mother with the disabled child whose husband walked out on her leaving, her with no maintenance and a child the government pays her a pittance to care for, and a fight for every drop of medication, wheelchair and even hour of respite care. Of course, her troubles are of her own making. Hmm

I am full of righteous anger for the previous government who made the country so dependent on handouts that people are better of on benefits than working, and the current government who is pulling the rug out from under these people without bothering to enable them to take care of themselves first. They care nothing about the suffering they're inflicting on the needy and vulnerable and I am baffled as to why you seem to think I should just shrug it off with a 'meh'.

Of course not everyone is deserving of my righteous anger. What a bizarre comment. And yes, this extra childcare will help a small proportion of poor people. But not many. So forgive me if I turn my attention to the huge pile of crap being dumped on the poor and vulnerable who don't happen to have a 2 year old in need of a couple of hours of childcare.

breadandbutterfly · 03/12/2011 12:25

Disputandem - source for those figures? Is inflation included or not - if not, the figures are somewhat meaningless.

breadandbutterfly · 03/12/2011 12:26

AnnieLobeseder - hear, hear.

Sevenfold · 03/12/2011 12:27

seeing as a lot of the hardets hit are disabled, the assumption that the poor are in charge of their own destiny is rubbish

Disputandum · 03/12/2011 12:53

B&B, the article says 'in real terms' which suggests that inflation has been taken out of the equation.

Disputandum · 03/12/2011 13:00

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism say that their data came from H M Treasury's Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2009 (available on HM Treasury's website) and 2400 FOI requests to local councils.

youngermother1 · 03/12/2011 14:13

Look also here www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn92.pdf. This shows that public spending went from 39.9% of GDP in 1997 to 48.1% in 2010. Also UK had the world's 2nd largest increase in govt spending between 1997-2007, so excludes any money spend because of the financial crisis. Ie the Labour party were spending massively in the boom years.
Also, if productivity had remained constant, rather than fallen, the govt would have saved £42.5bn a year in spending.
Vast increase in spending, no reforms, all driven by borrowing. This was the the Labour legacy that is now being dealt with - hence the note left in the Chancellors office for the incoming conservatives - 'there is no money left'. www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/17/liam-byrne-note-successor

breadandbutterfly · 03/12/2011 18:49

youngermother - you claimed earlier that Labour "increased public sector spending by 50% in 5 years " - how does that tally with your post above that states that "public spending went from 39.9% of GDP in 1997 to 48.1% in 2010" - more like a 25% increase over 13 years, by my rough calculation?

youngermother1 · 04/12/2011 00:38

Apologies for an error - it was something I read somewhere. Having looked at the governemnt data here www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_year2005_0.html#ukgs302F0 which enables you to look at each year, shows that for the first 3 years from 1997, when the Labour party followed Tory spending plans, growth was 2%-3% per year, in line with inflation. From 2001 to 2010, the growth was over 5% each year, averaging 7%, well above inflation.
Average 5 year growth is in excess of 30% and total spending growth from 1997-2010 was 110%.
Net debt in 1997 was £348bn and in 2010 was £760bn, an increase of 118%, ie all the increased spending was debt funded.
Basically everything the Labour party did was mortgaged on the future and none was based on what we can afford.
The current government is trying to stop spending money we don't have which means making difficult choices. These are either spending cuts or additional taxation. Raising tax rates does not raise additional income as was shown in the late 70's and early 80's. (in 1979, the top rate of tax on earned income was 83% -with a basic rate of 33%.) The government from then to 1997 reduced rates and earned more tax income, mainly due to lower avoidance and being attractive to tax payers. The labour government realised the truth of this and did not change rates between 1997-2010.
In reality, the only way to reduce our borrowing is to cut spending. Unfortunately spending is on the lower earners, so this is cut.

I do not see any other route and wish one existed - if I have missed something please tell me.

Taghain · 14/12/2011 17:27

Extra childcare support is only useful if the carer can find a job. If they can't, where's the benefit?

madhatter80 · 23/12/2011 13:33

Actually, it is more the middle income earners who are really on the receiving end of the cuts. A family of 4 (2 adults and 2 kids) with one earner on £43k per year will lose their child tax credits and child benefit in 2012-2013. They are not entitled to free school meals, housing benefit, income support, free prescriptions or subsidised childcare for 2 year olds. They will receive a total of £31,500 pa after tax and NI has been taken off and have to pay all their bills, housing etc from that.

In contrast a family of exactly the same composition, with both parents unemployed and 2 children would be entitled to housing benefit, jobseekers allowance or income support, child tax credits, child benefit, free school meals, free prescriptions, free childcare for 2 year olds, plus loads of other perks. They will also be getting a 5% rise in their benefits from next year, so they would actually be better off than the family with one higher rate taxpayer without having to commute to work every day.

The definition of poverty is also flawed because it is relative poverty so if someone is only getting 60% or less of the median income in the UK, they are classed as being in poverty. This means that if everyone is earning £100, but you are earning £59k, then you would be classed as poor.

Also, it doesn't take into account that you can be better off without earning as much. For example, a family in a 3 bed council flat with rent of £100 per week but only earning £20k might be financially better off than a family in a 2 bed private rental paying £300 per week earning £30k (before tax).

Also, I have to agree with some of the other posts - it is very easy to blame the coalition but if it wasn't for nuLabour's reckless spending from the tree of never ending money, then none of these cuts would be necessary in the first place.

Peachy · 29/12/2011 12:16

You are assuming people ahve access to council accom Mad; many like us are working poor who have to stay in rental becuase of a shortage of LA Accom. Our income will halve this year and it is likely we will spend a period as homeless not becuase of unwillingness to work- at no time in our marriage have we been without an earner- but becuase of my carer status limiting what I can do and a lack of childcare.

We need a 4 bedroom house by social services decree due to risk factors from our children's disability: there is no enhanced payment under HB now for those using a four bedroom house whatever the reason so likely we will end up with the boys being in foster care for a period too. Cheers!

madhatter80 · 29/12/2011 13:01

Peachy - exactly my point. It is not the workless who are losing their benefits, it is going to be low and middle income earners.

Of course not everyone has access to social housing but those who don't live in council accommodation get local housing allowance, meaning they get their accommodation paid for by other taxpayers who have to use their own after tax salary to fund their accommodation (like myself and my husband).

I don't know what you mean by social services decree. Surely if you need more rooms due to severe disability of your children then you should be in the highest priority for social housing? Also, if you become homeless you will become priority to be rehoused in social housing. If only Labour had built some council houses during their 13 years in power, we wouldn't have to pay private landlords crazy amounts to rent their houses.

May I ask why your income is halving?

Peachy · 29/12/2011 13:33

No, same rules for social housizng apply whatever as we are not yet officially homeless.

Income halving as Dh graduates and student loan / grant menas that obviously ends; DH works but only PT so needs to rebuild. He retrained post redundancy.

LA doesn;t cover private rents these days, and will for far less again shortly as amunts being reduced steadily. Were we on full HB we'd be £150 short per calendar month but no LL is likely to lease to us with our boys and it would mean moving away from catchment of the SNU we fought for 3 years to get ds3 into.

Swipe left for the next trending thread