Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
madhatter80 · 29/12/2011 14:25

Peachy - I assume you are on the list for social housing. In most boroughs, if you are severely disabled or have disabled children you would be at the top of the list for social housing, so I imagine you would be rehoused at some point. The problem is there are very few social homes that have 4 beds (are you in London) and the waiting lists are huge, hence why the government has been paying private landlords housing benefit. As I said earlier, if only Labour had bothered to build some council houses over their 13 year governance.

My 2 dc share a room and we are in the private rented sector. Would love to have rooms for each of them but we just can't afford it.

SardineQueen · 29/12/2011 14:44

"3k extra for childcare support is a pretty bloody good deal, especially for those on very low incomes with families"

Implying it is still useful for those without families?

That's made me snigger Grin

LePruneDeMaTante · 29/12/2011 15:10

The jury's well out on whether or not the previous government got us into this, so while the country's professional economists can't agree, it's ridiculous to be blaming them wholesale for what this bunch of bastards are doing Confused

madhatter80 · 29/12/2011 19:20

LePruneDeMaTante - What are you talking about??? When the Tories left power in 1997, they handed nuLabour a healthy economy which was actually in surplus. The deficit and debt has built up under nuLabour's disastrous run of spend spend spend. Brown as Chancellor was a disaster for the UK, selling off our gold at rock bottom prices and encouraging cheap credit and debt to mount up.

If you want to believe the Tories have created all the problems in just 18 months but nuLabour, in power for 13 years were all angels and not responsible for the wreck they left the Tories to clean up then you are deluded. Remember it was Brown the nuLabour Prime Minister who, in 2008, frittered away billions by bailing out the banks not the Tories.

Besides, if Labour had been re-elected in 2010, they would have been making the same or bigger cuts to bring down the defecit as the coalition have. But it makes a much nicer sound bite to pin it all on the nasty, evil, child-eating Tories (rolls eyes).

niceguy2 · 29/12/2011 20:52

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.

jackstarb · 29/12/2011 21:34

Anyone interested in a historical perspective on the economic mess we are in and how we got here should watch the excellent BBC2 Peston programme The Party's Over - How the West went Bust

I don't think any political party 'caused' the problems - rather they failed to manage them adequately. Papering over cracks, if you will, and not tackling underlying issues.

As to the equal distribution of 'pain' - sadly service cuts impact those who use public services the most - so not the richest 10% of the population. I don't think in-equality of pain is a sensible reason for not cutting public services, which we can't afford. The 50% tax rate is there to 'penalise' those on the highest incomes.

madhatter80 · 30/12/2011 10:51

The problem with punitive taxes on the rich is that they can all move abroad and you get a cutting off your nose to spite your face situation (a politically motivated gesture that may not be economically worthwhile). This results in a loss of income for the taxman, so less can be spent on things like the welfare state. Yes, tax on unearned wealth is another matter, but if you tax hard work, motivation and entrepreneurship you get a situation where nobody bothers to better themselves because they will be penalised. This is the classic socialist way (to use other peoples money to fund pet projects) and then complain when the situation needs to be rectified and the debt needs to be repaid.

Hogmanayhoneyblossom · 30/12/2011 10:58

Madhatter- that theory doesn't pan out in practice. There are plenty of rich people who CHOOSE to live in the UK even if they would be financially better off elsewhere like Monaco. It is precisely because they are so rich that they can afford to make these lifestyle choices.

Even if some people did leave, they do not have unique qualities and could be replaced by other people.

Low tax for the rich is ideological not pragmatic.

niceguy2 · 30/12/2011 11:44

Hogmanay. Some do choose to live in the UK...many do not. To say a punitive tax regime doesn't put the rich off is simply stupid and lacks common sense. Of course it does. The top 1% already pay 25% of all income tax receipts. The next 9% pay the next 25%. Just how much more do you want to tax the rich and how many rich people do you think there are? Not many I can tell you.

Those ultra rich are unaffected anyway as they have most of their 'riches' in assets which are not subject to income tax. I bet many of them have their assets in Monaco then just come to live in the UK, paying very little in the way of income tax.

So it's those who are well off but not quite rich enough to afford an army of tax accountants who end up suffering the most. Those very people with the skills to emigrate. The very people who we want to keep to develop a high tech/high skilled economy.

A punitive tax regime puts people off, plain & simple. My first direct experience of this was quite a few years ago when I earned enough just to tip me over into HRT. My company later wanted me to do some overtime which would have been worth around £100. Unfortunately after tax it was < £60 (HRT & NI). I concluded that whilst it would have been nice, that I'd rather spend the time with my family than lose my weekend.

Of course it was nice of me to have a choice but economically speaking the higher rate of tax put me off working harder.

We see the same all the time at the other end of the spectrum where there's clearly a benefits trap whereby it's not worth people going to work. There's a similar disincentive at the other end of the scale.

Yes there are a few people who earn vast sums of money. But they are VERY VERY few in numbers. Most of us have to work and work hard for our money. We have to take on responsibilities, sacrifice family time and take risks. To have a punitive tax rate simply puts people off doing that.

bemybebe · 30/12/2011 12:01

Hogmanay super rich aka Abramovich etc choose to stay in the UK because their worldwide wealth is taxed to the max of 30K or thereabouts as non-doms. Moderately rich UK or EU citizens are slowly but surely persuaded to move abroad (outside of the EU). I personally know a number of people. Something that people do reluctantly because they are used to the UK (family, schools, etc) but the flow will increase as living standards and expat communities bloom in places like China and the middle East...

Peachy · 30/12/2011 12:17

Where we live there are 30 thousand people on the waiting list for a council home, we have been told a 4 bed would take 5 years. And frankly LMAo at the 'I would love them to have separate bedrooms but...'

Do you not think I would love mine to be able to share? DS2 and ds4 will. DS3 sleeps downstaoirs as he is so vulnerable, ds1 has to be separated becuase of his violence. We've been really poor, we used to be home owners in fact and had to sell up, and none of it compares to having to know that two of your children at least can't even share a room without being put at risk or putting another sibling at significant risk.

Peachy · 30/12/2011 12:20

'As to the equal distribution of 'pain' - sadly service cuts impact those who use public services the most - so not the richest 10% of the population. I don't think in-equality of pain is a sensible reason for not cutting public services, which we can't afford.

Which ones do you consider disposable Jack? And if I have the few services I use cut AND am forced into employment or workfare by changes to the system, how do I cope? Now, I hope I can find work and that DH manages to keep working from home and we sort oursel;ves out but it's a situation affecting a great many so ideas appreciated...

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.

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 12:44

watch this

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.

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.

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

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".

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.

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.

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 15:08

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

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.

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.