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:
edam · 14/01/2012 16:28

well said, LadySybil.

LadySybilDeChocolate · 14/01/2012 16:58
Smile
niceguy2 · 16/01/2012 16:00

To a certain extent I agree with you LadySybil. Who caused the deficit in practice doesn't matter now. Ditto with the banking crisis. We are where we are.

But it does get my goat somewhat when people jump on the "hate the Tories" bandwagon without understanding the facts. Or holding them to a completely different standard than Labour.

I think you mean that you feel some of the rich pay very little tax but that's actually not bourne out by facts. The top 1% pay 25% of all income tax. The top 10% pay 50% of all income tax. So actually they do pay a lot of money in tax. Whether you think they should pay more is a different debate.

The Olympics I don't really get. Why do countries move heaven & earth to persuade a group of corrupt (allegedly) officials to host the games? It's always a waste of money I agree and the costs always spiral. But again, we are where we are. We 'won' the right to host the games years ago and it's too late to back out now.

As for cutting benefits it's something we simply must do because there simply isn't enough money. We either cut now or cut more later. You must have read the news recently. Even Labour are now tripping over themselves to show that they'd match Tory cuts.

These cuts are not bourne out of ideology. MP's don't vote for unpopular measures anymore than turkeys vote for christmas. But there is simply no other choice.

ttosca · 17/01/2012 18:46

niceguy

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.

I'm not saying that debt is unimportant per se. I'm saying that the UK is not currently experiencing a DEBT crisis. The crisis is a structural deficit crisis.

The larger the perceived risk by investors to lend money or invest in the UK, the larger the interest rates charged. The danger is that the cost of borrowing reaches at critical point - normally around 7% or so - whereby borrowing costs spiral out of control.

Keynesian policies advocate government's spending in bad times to smooth out the dips. Correct.

Which is precisely the opposite of what the Tory scum government is doing.

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!

Yes, New Labour 'spectacularly failed' (not much of a spectacle) to save during good times, as I've pointed out 1000 times already, all governments (blue team and red team) for the past 50 years have run structural deficits almost all of the time.

Why you think it's so important to specifically blame New Labour for not saving during boom times is revealing; you specifically want to blame New Labour for the current crisis, when the blame should be placed on international finance Capital.

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!

See- there you go again! No, borrowing didn't 'get us in trouble in the first place'. New Labour ran a 3% deficit, and for the 1001th time: Every government for the past 50 years has run a deficit most of the time. Furthermore, we did not accumulate more and more debt relative to GDP of this time. In fact, our Debt/GDP ratio decreased.

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.

We didn't max out our credit cards.

I'm getting pretty tired of having to explain this over and over to you again. Either you are so ideologically blind that you are literally unable to comprehend this point, or you're just a bit thick.

Public spending in the UK was not 'profligate' prior to the crisis. Although it did increased considerably in New Labour's later years, this was not the cause of the crisis, and even if New Labour had (unusual for ANY government) kept an absolute balance of 0% deficit, there would still have been a financial crisis.

The crisis would have still caused a recession, which would have still reduced tax receipts and still caused millions of job loses and welfare costs to increase. So we'd still be in the midst of a recession and still be experiencing a huge structural deficit problem.

Please don't tell me I have to repeat this again. Next time I'm just going to copy and paste.

OP posts:
ttosca · 17/01/2012 18:47

niceguy

But it does get my goat somewhat when people jump on the "hate the Tories" bandwagon without understanding the facts. Or holding them to a completely different standard than Labour.

This is exactly what you do! You ignore the facts and hold New Labour to a different standard than every single previous government in the past half century!

Talk about a total lack of self awareness!

OP posts:
ttosca · 17/01/2012 18:54

niceguy

I think you mean that you feel some of the rich pay very little tax but that's actually not bourne out by facts. The top 1% pay 25% of all income tax. The top 10% pay 50% of all income tax. So actually they do pay a lot of money in tax. Whether you think they should pay more is a different debate.

The top 1% pay the most income tax because they receive the most income, dramatically so. It's not use complaining that, say, 1 person pays 99 Shekels and 99 people each only 1 Shekel, when the 1% (that one person) has 99 times the wealth of everybody else.

The fact is that there is huge wealth and income inequality - especially in this country. If you want to poor and middle classes to pay a greater share, then the economy should be structured in such a way that they earn enough money to contribute!

As for cutting benefits it's something we simply must do because there simply isn't enough money. We either cut now or cut more later. You must have read the news recently. Even Labour are now tripping over themselves to show that they'd match Tory cuts.

Yeah, there's never enough money, except for wars, bailing out banks, private MPs expenses, and buying a new yacht for the 'Queen'.

These cuts are not bourne out of ideology. MP's don't vote for unpopular measures anymore than turkeys vote for christmas. But there is simply no other choice.

These cuts are absolutely ideological. They're so ideological they're actually counter-productive. The cuts are so deep that they're cutting off growth, even the IMF has said so. Furthermore, it is the nature of the cuts that proves how ideological they are: the poorest are paying the hardest, while businesses receive tax breaks and the 'Queen' receives a new yacht.

You should stop defending these vile scum. They're nothing but a bunch of sociopaths.

OP posts:
ElBurroSinNombre · 17/01/2012 19:48

The thing that you ignore ttosca, is that Labour accelerated public spending during a boom when tax receipts were at their highest. That fact is borne out by one of the graphs that you are so fond of posting. The assumption made by Gordon Brown was that boom and bust was over and we could carry on borrowing more year on year because our economy would grow year on year indefinitely. This was a very reckless assumption to make and has proved in time to be false. If they had chosen not to accelerate spending at this time and go into surplus (or even run a small deficit) we would now not have to make so many cuts now and could perhaps even throw some money at the recession to help smooth its effect.

The other big mistake that Labour made was not to regulate the banking industry effectively when they had the chance. Again this is a fundamental failing of their approach that has helped to cause the current economic situation. I agree that the current crisis and cuts are about the structural deficit but crisis this is a directly linked to the policies of the last government.

I am no longer surprised by your inability to conduct a debate in a civilised way. You seem to be unable to accept that others may hold a valid opinion that is different to your own. Your patronising tone is often quite amusing (like you are the only person who has ever given this some thought) and your name calling of others is very childish indeed.

claig · 17/01/2012 19:51

'You should stop defending these vile scum. They're nothing but a bunch of sociopaths.'

Hold on a minute, these people are Right Honourable Members and I don't mean in the anatomical sense. They are proponents of the 'Big Society', how can they be sociopaths?

There is no need to froth at the mouth with rabid insults of parliamentarians. Let's try and keep the debate rational.

VivaLaSativa · 17/01/2012 20:00

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.

Woah, That's a bit uncalled for, What a horrible person you must be, Oh the things that I could say but I shall refrain because I am a better person than you.

Coolfonz · 17/01/2012 20:47

I concur completely with the attacks on the right/banking/shadow banking etc. A few points.
It wasn't the (propaganda of the) banking sector collapsing in 2007-08 it was the entire private sector which faced collapse.
After the debts were socialised to the state a second whammy was the collapse in the tax take.
The Tories have cut taxes for corporations (by 4pc) and allowed them to repatriate foreign earnings without question.

But separately plenty of people who see themselves as centre left or (broad term) liberals were quite happy to vote for the Labour party, three times, who not only bombed the hell out of two countries but also adopted the economic policies of neo-liberalism with gusto. The unions still funded them, people queued up for pay rises while the poorest 10pc saw reductions in wages in real terms - the real reason for the benefit trap.

Loads of centrist/liberals/unionists made a pact with neo-liberalism and post-fascism and were essentially bought off.

They forgot how they arrived at free education, free health care, social care, benefit payments, workplace regulations.

They got it from socialism, anarchism and communism. They got it from some genuine socialists in the post war Labour Party and the Unions, they got it from returning veterans of the Spanish civil war defeating post-war British fascism in the streets with violence and they got it above all from the threat of Soviet Communism.

They didn't get it from some nice debate with powerful right wing interests who had appeased Nazism and supported fascism in Europe into the mid-1970s. They didn't get it from smart shows on the media, a quiche drive, settling for what is available, widespread economic illiteracy or political hopelessness.

The poor in the UK (and elsewhere) have already had 30 years of this and aren't very sympathetic now as centrists turn around and find out their child will pay £27,000 to get higher education, their house is still part owned by banks and they will probably work til they die...

Game over centre ground, choose your side ;)

ElBurroSinNombre · 17/01/2012 21:04

Coolfonz,

I would be interested in where the political leadership that will represent the massive amount of anger and discontent that the center will feel, will come from. Labour is implicated in creating the situation and offers nothing interesting atm and the other two parties are also complicit. I can't imagine that the extreme left or right would ever garner much support in the UK, given their one dimensional world view.
But I do feel that there is a big opportunity for something different and new to emerge from this, especially given the communications revolution we have experienced in the last decade.

edam · 17/01/2012 22:32

We need something different to emerge from this, otherwise things will get very dangerous politically - if you have a justifiably angry population who can see the people in charge are just carrying on as before. And because carrying on as we did before the crash isn't an option. Only problem is there seems to be no-one who has any fresh ideas...

New posts on this thread. Refresh page