Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:
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 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:
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 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:
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.

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.

edam · 12/01/2012 22:40

Elburro - every developed nation (and China's possibly not looking too good in the near future, either) was caught out by the banking crisis. Not just the UK. So it's not a British Labour party issue - Bush was in charge in the US when the shit started hitting the fan, governments of all complexions have been caught out. Unless you want to paint Merkel and Berlusconi as secret agents of the British Labour party, perhaps? And it's not even as if the Tories have a history of economic competence - remember the ERM debacle? The three recessions under Thatcher and Major?

What the Germans have that we don't is a decent manufacturing sector - something successive governments, of both types, have been happy to let slide in the UK, in favour of boosting financial services. Not looking to clever right now.

ttosca · 12/01/2012 23:34

niceguy

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

Thanks.

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.

And you still continue with nonsense which has been thorough debunked several times over. The DEBT has not steadily been increasing due to cumulative deficits over a 30 or 50 year period. In fact, it has steadily decreased:

www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/debt_brief.php

The chart shows that DEBT, as a percentage of GDP, massively decreased until about 1980, whereupon it fluctuated a bit, although decreasing slightly overall, and then jumping sharply as a result of the financial crisis.

Once again, you have this fantasy in your head that the UK has been accumulating more and more debt over time due to running structural deficits, and now, in this fantasy of yours, the bucket is about to spill over from all the debt we've accumulated over time.

This is wrong. False. Bunk. Nonsense. How many times does this need to be shown?

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 blaming either the deficit NOR the debt on the Tories. Both teams since the 1950s has run deficits most of the time, and there has always been a debt in the UK during this century.

What I am trying to get through your head is that New Labour aren't responsible for either the current deficit or debt, except insofar as deregulating the banks - something which has been happening all over europe as a result of psychopathic neo-liberal ideology. You'll notice we're experiencing a global financial crisis.

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

No, you're not lying, you're just a fantasist who is unable to accept reality despite the facts being pointed out to you over and over and over and over again.

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

Wrong.

a) The DEBT is at a historical low

b) The DEBT jumped as a result of 1) Spending to bail out the banks 2) Loss of tax receipts caused by the recession which was caused by the recession

c) You can clearly see this happening on the graph from 2008.

You quite clearly want to blame New Labour for something. Since that's the case, then blame them for deregulating the banks. Don't try to blame them for running up a huge debt, because it's complete nonsense.

OP posts:
ttosca · 12/01/2012 23:56

El Burro

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).

They don't. If you refer back to the chart:

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

It shows cyclically-adjusted borrowing (deficit). It follows very closely until about 1980, where it deviates considerably until 1987. During only the period of 1981-1983 was the cyclically-adjusted deficit negative when the non-adjusted deficit was positive. The reverse appears to be the case for 1988-1990. From 1991, the two curves follow very closely again.

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.

Why? Because the only reason to spend government money is as a counter-cyclical measure? There might be other reasons to spend money, like, you know... public need.

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.

Oh, they most certainly are.

But ultimately the blame for this lies with Labour's mismanagement of the economy.

No, it lies with neo-liberal Capitalism. Expect another crisis, we've had several during the 20th Century, we'll keep having them until we instate a more rational economic system.

OP posts:
niceguy2 · 13/01/2012 00:17

Boom & bust are inherent traits of any laissez faire economy. If you have a more 'rational' economic system which will work better than the one we currently have and doesn't share major traits with North Korea, Cuba and China (before they converted to capitalism) then please do tell the powers that be. I'm sure they would be most interested.

ttosca · 13/01/2012 00:32

Boom & bust are inherent traits of any laissez faire economy.

Any Capitalist economy.

If you have a more 'rational' economic system which will work better than the one we currently have and doesn't share major traits with North Korea, Cuba and China (before they converted to capitalism) then please do tell the powers that be. I'm sure they would be most interested.

They wouldn't be interested for the very reason that the current system suits 'the powers that be' very well, thank you very much. That's the reason we still have this system, even though it benefits a minority at the expense of the majority.

OP posts:
ttosca · 13/01/2012 08:02

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

Wrong.

Ooops! I misread what you wrote. No, the debt cannot be pinned on New Labour. The recent spike in debt and deficit levels is the result of the financial crisis. Prior to the crisis, both debt and deficit were at historical lows. Debt is still at a historical low now, when comparing even the 2nd half of the 20th C.

You quite clearly want to blame New Labour for something. Since that's the case, then blame them for deregulating the banks. Don't try to blame them for running up a huge debt, because it's complete nonsense.

OP posts:
niceguy2 · 13/01/2012 09:06

Ttosca. It's incredibly hard to have a reasoned debate with you since even when I'm agreeing with you, you find a way to disagree with me.

I said New Labour wasn't solely responsible for the debt. Yet you say I'm wrong then the next step say i'm blaming them for running up a huge debt.

You are not comparing apples with apples. You are comparing the debt as a percentage of GDP and saying "look it's low'. Whereas I prefer to look at the overall level of debt (chart 1) and that clearly shows that debt has been increasing and the massive increase well before the financial crisis.

Now you may argue that I need to compare that with GDP as our income increased so our debt in comparison isn't as big. The problem is that as we've seen recently, GDP varies. The debt doesn't.

That and the structural deficit mean that we're in deep shit. And that I'm sorry was partly New Labour's fault.

ttosca · 13/01/2012 16:43

niceguy

That's pathetic and laughable. The idea that you look at the debt over the course of a century without taking in to account growth in GDP is beyond absurd.

It's like saying that a £2000 debt to a homeless man is worse than a £1000 debt for the government of the United States of America.

Basically, as I've said before, you really really really really want to believe that we're accumulating more and more debt from spend, spend, spending more and more of 'lavish' public services or whatever your fantasy is.

I'm not sure where this comes from - either a pure hatred of Labour and an attempt to pin the blame on them for something big, or maybe an element of machismo about 'buckling down and making tough choices', or maybe an element of both.

In any case, since your stance is not borne out of facts but some sort of strong emotional need, I have no doubt you'll continue to spread your fantasies on Mumsnet. So long as you continue to do so, I'll continue to correct you.

OP posts:
niceguy2 · 13/01/2012 22:11

I've no longer any idea what you are trying to prove. Even when I agree, you disagree.

You are in the small minority (thankfully) which still thinks that it's not a problem and that we can carry on regardless.

If YOU are correct and our debt isn't an issue, why then is every single mainstream party saying it is? Why would all three parties risk unpopular cuts when (in your opinion) clearly there's no problem?

Why then is the EU shitting bricks over their debt crisis? Why is even the USA making cuts to pay down their debts when their debt crisis is nowhere near as bad as ours?

Is it just one giant conspiracy where every single government in the western world is a part of? One where every single banker is colluding with the governments to keep the poor workers misinformed and oppressed?

Or could it be that you are simply wrong?

I know what I'd put my money on?

Have a nice day.

ttosca · 14/01/2012 01:28

niceguy

I've no longer any idea what you are trying to prove. Even when I agree, you disagree.

We don't agree.

You are in the small minority (thankfully) which still thinks that it's not a problem and that we can carry on regardless.

What do you mean by 'carry on'? I'm not suggesting we 'carry on'.

This is what I'm trying to say:

a) We don't have DEBT crisis

b) We do have a structural deficit

c) We are in danger of a DEFICIT crisis, but we are not there yet.

d) What I mean by DEFICIT crisis is that, since we are in the midst of a recession due to the financial crisis, we have to keep borrowing large amounts of money because tax receipts have plummeted (business doing poorly) costs have increased (welfare).

e) The danger is that the cost of borrowing may spiral out of control. When our credit rating is downgraded, borrowing costs more, and it is more likely that we default, this in turn endangers our credit rating...etc, etc.

f) Clearly, we need to address the structural deficit by either reducing costs or increasing income.

g) Anti-Keynesian policies (what the Tory scum are doing now with slash and burning public spending) have shown to be a failure in the past and are failing again now.

h) The best policy, IMO, would be a fair reduction in spending which places the burden on those most able to afford it, a serious attempt to collect unpaid taxes (collecting maybe £20-30 Billion annually), and Keynesian stimulus policies.

i) Finally, the blame for the economic situation is partially New Labour's fault, in that they deregulated the banking sector. It is also the general fault of previous governments for destroying manufacturing and making the economy so dependent on finance.

j) It is not the result of New Labour's 'profligate' public spending.

k) This is a global financial crisis which came about because the financial sector was a big pyramid and gambling scheme. Therefore, the main culprits are all the governments in the West who instituted neo-liberal policies of deregulation and laissez-faire economics.

OP posts:
ttosca · 14/01/2012 01:30

niceguy

There is no conspiracy. Governments need to get their budgets under control in the sense that they need to fix their structural deficit, or their cost of borrowing may spiral out of control.

Again, it's not because all these governments spent so much money on healthcare of welfare that they're in the situation they're in now; even if they had perfectly balanced budgets at 0%, they would still be deeply in the red due to the global recession caused by the financial crisis.

The best way to fix the structural deficit is a combination of fair cuts to public spending and Keynesian stimulus policies. The current policies are failing.

OP posts:
niceguy2 · 14/01/2012 11:12

We're gonna go around in circles forever I think in some war of attrition.

Right, on some of the points I am with you. On some points, I get your drift but I think you are being over simplistic.

So for example you boldly claim there's no debt crisis when of course there plainly is. The thing is that how much you can be in debt by is relative to how much others will tolerate. A few years ago, no-one cared. Banks didn't really look hard at all about the debt. Now they do. They look very very hard at your deficit, level of debt and your economy's performance. And if they don't like what they see, your interest rate goes up. That's why there's a crisis. You can owe as much money as you want and there's no crisis.......up until they want their money back or refuse to lend you anymore.

Keynesian policies advocate government's spending in bad times to smooth out the dips. Correct. The other side of the coin is that government's should save during the good times. New Labour spectacularly failed to do so. In fact GB went as far as to say why....he'd abolished boom & bust!

So the coalition took over. There's no money in the pot. We know this because they left a nice note telling us there wasn't any money left. So how does a government spend money in a recession it hasn't got? Borrow it? Oh yes....the very thing which has got us in trouble in the first place!

No doubt you will claim that other western countries did exactly the same and you'd also be correct. But as the old adage goes "Two wrongs do not make a right". Just because our neighbour's were all also busy maxing out their credit cards on the never never, doesn't make it OK that we did the same.

LadySybilDeChocolate · 14/01/2012 11:47

It doesn't matter how the defficit was created or by whom, what matters is that the current government are forcing the most vulnerable sectors of society into poverty in order for them to save money but are allowing the richest to get away with it. This is very wrong. The bankers don't deserve bonuses, they have created a world recession. Some of the top tax payers in the UK pay very little tax. It's a farce. We're tied into hosting an Olympics that we can't afford. Every host country over the past x number of years have lost huge amounts of money, look at Greece now! When Cameron was elected he promised that the weakest and vulnerable members of society would be supported. Cutting benefits to the disabled is far from 'supporting'.