The ConDem assault on the language is remarkable thing to behold. They just simply say black is white and vice versa. So what is regressive becomes ‘progressive.’ What is unjust becomes ‘fair.’ What is a choice becomes ‘unavoidable.’
Having reset the language they then fill in the gaps with ‘evidence.’ Take Andy Mayer’s post this morning on Liberal Vision (very tiring this Coalition; I have to read a series of Liberal Democrat blogs as well as ConservativeHome etc.) Let me give you a flavour:
“The other point of attack is that to be progressive the Budget depends on previously introduced measures not yet implemented, for example the 50% tax rate. There is something in that, however it is the case that the Coalition could have reversed those measures. It is the Coalition, not Labour implementing the changes.”
This is the alley gangster argument.
“OK, so I kicked you in the knee. What are you complaining about? I could have punched you in the face. Repeatedly.”
“Thanks Andy. Sorry for being in your eyesight when you’re in a bad mood. Please forgive me.”
Let me deal with the most insidious of the arguments in the piece: the one that says that those in lower decile are ‘only’ £25-30 per year worse off than the next to lowest decile. Firstly, yes the relativities matter (and they will continually worsen as a result of the measures in this budget.) But the absolutes matter as well. The average for this group is actually a reduction of £200 by 2012-13 (TIP: always keep an eye on the dates, they matter.) Bear in mind also that this group contains many who have little income but live off their wealth/assets or savings or have volatile income. Some of these people will be relatively comfortable and not living on benefits/ credits so may not feel pinch to the same extent.
When these people are stripped out, what is left is a group of people who could be hit very hard by this Budget indeed. The graphs and figures mask these people. See my post on Single Mothers for example. There will be other groups. And remember, neither the IFS data or HM Treasury data takes account of reforms of housing benefit, benefits for single mothers, or Disability Living Allowance etc. So not only will there be hidden groups in these figures who are hit very hard, once you take into account other elements of this Budget they will be hit even harder.
But we are only talking £200 right? Until 2012-13 we are but then it continues to rise as the new basis for index-linking benefits- the lower CPI instead of RPI- kicks in. So those who rely on benefits will increasingly be penalised and these inequalities compound over time. Over the course of a few years we are talking hundreds of pounds of income and widening inequality- both matter.
And what is £200? Well, to lose about £4 a week in income actually can hit some people very hard. For wealthy Liberal Democrats, £4 may only be the price of a nice frothy soya milk Latte with an extra shot and butterscotch syrup. For someone on a very low income £4 a week is a family meal. Or it’s a broadband connection so their kids have access to the same educational opportunities as their peers. Or it pays for the electricity or heating. Or, saved up, it might be a few days camping for the family. Or a mobile phone so that they can manage their lives better and be available if anything happens to the kids. It might pay for the kids’ school uniforms. Or it might buy a good family Christmas where the kids have one day where they don’t feel poor. It may help them run a car so they can go to job interviews or college or have a chance of work.
Maybe in the Liberal Democrat universe these aren’t essentials. And this is the new divisive language at play again: deserving v undeserving, essential v non-essential. In modern Britain, these are all things that are absolutely essential.
But you can twist and contort data all you like. You can say black is white. But once you’ve run out of numbers and graphs and clever language there is only one thing left. That’s the people you are in office to serve. And they have real lives. And they can be tough lives. And this Budget let them down.
June 25th, 2010 at 10:18
Welcome to the world of the local Lib Dem leaflet writer. I’m a cllr in Camden, where we just had four years’ trial run of the oh-so progressive local Libs teaming up with the Tories to cut services – when times and budgets were good). For those of us used to the barrage of former trees that get put through our letterboxes during an election, the Libs propensity to twist any set of facts to suit their headline of choice puts the Sunday Times Insight team to shame.
Their speciality in Camden was presenting any clear political decision they made as an unavoidable inevitability, foisted on them by someone else. Often they came close to denyng they were actually in charge. I thought it was just my local lot. Turns out it’s a political strategy for keeping the coalition and the we’re-no-longer-nasty Cameroon flame alive.
What joy – the country governed by people whose only skill is producing Focus ragsheets.
As ever, excellent analysis of the truth behind this ‘progressive’ Budget – please keep it coming!
June 25th, 2010 at 11:56
I can see myself just getting crosser and crosser that Lib Dems don’t seem to see what impact their decisions will have (and there are others they could make).
Any Lib Dem should look at the IFS graphs: Budget projection,slides 14 & 15 in particular http://bit.ly/8XiIGR Gives an immediate visual demonstration of the inequity of the new cuts.
Cuts planned by previous government were distributed towards the better off. All the new cuts planned by coalition are heavily weighted to hit the poor.
Budget vote is next week. Many Lib Dems will be aware and feeling very uncomfortable about how their constituents will feel when it becomes clear. If you have a local Lib Dem MP, please contact them via http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ And draw their attention to the IFS graphs, and this blog, showing how regressive and socially divisive this budget will be.
June 25th, 2010 at 14:35
Another top post.
June 29th, 2010 at 09:24
Don’t want to be too boring about this but:
1) Someone borrowed too much. It has to be paid back;
2) ’Dear Chief Secretary, I’m afraid to tell you there’s no money left’ Stephen Byrne.
3) Nick Robinson to Alaisatir Darling: : “The Treasury’s own figures suggest deeper, tougher than Thatcher’s – do you accept that?”
Darling: “They will be deeper and tougher – where we make the precise comparison I think is secondary to an acknowledgement that these reductions will be tough.”
TW
June 29th, 2010 at 09:42
Which bits of the following don’t you like?
- raising Capital Gains Tax
- the flat rate public sector pay rise of £250 for those earning less than £21000
- taking 880,000 people out of tax by raising the personal allowance by £1000 with a commitment to working towards £10,000 over
- restricting tax credits for higher earnings and giving more to those who need it with an extra £150 to those on low incomes.
- restoring the pensions/earnings link – big one this -I think I would have left it as it was to support single mothers and similar
- keeping the structure of Child Benefit intact, albeit frozen for 3 years
- a bank levy
- no tax break for married couples – it was only £150.
Would the Tories have included these on their own?
Will you also support the significant cut in Corporation Tax (see recent Labour action in government)
And at the risk of yah boo politics (for which apologies – that would not be appropriate on this considered and intelligent blog) is it true that one of the first acts of Labour in Government way back in the 90s was to restrict benefits for lone parents?
You are of course entitled to dislike the budget and the government, and you can argue that these are the wrong compromises – yes I would have made different ones as well – but someone, for the good of the country, has to get that debt repaid.
July 10th, 2010 at 01:47
“But once you’ve run out of numbers and graphs and clever language there is only one thing left. That’s the people you are in office to serve. And they have real lives”
They, and even their unborn children, also have a real national debt of staggering size due to the incompetence, waste and foolishness of the previous Labour administration.
Your party lied to people. You promised them they would have jobs and generous welfare for life, schools and hospitals on the national credit card, and never have to pay the bills. How dare you lecture anyone else from that shameful record. If we are picking colourful gangster analogies your government have behaved like loan shark spivs.
The national debt has to be paid back, and that cannot be done without reducing spending and raising taxes. Within the Budget the vast bulk of that burden both in substance and relatively is falling on the top decile of earners.
These, lest you forget, are also real people, paying on average it would eventually appear about £3,000 a year. The piece you are attacking suggests left-wing commentators have simply ignored that fact whilst falling over themselves to decry a £25-£50 per year difference in the share of the pain between the 10th and 20th decile.
Precisely what your post then does.
July 10th, 2010 at 10:39
Andy, thank you for your comment.
Let’s track back to 2007. What would you have done in the face of global financial meltdown? Balanced the books? Funny, because Vince Cable was supportive of every step Labour took (in fact wanted it to go further in many instances). And let’s not kid ourselves with the pre-credit crunch debt crisis argument- Current receipts and expenditure were in balance (would you argue that we should not borrow to invest????)
It’s funny, because Liberal Democrats used to talk about the economy. Now they just talk about debt.
Of course, the two are linked but politically they are in an awful place so they desperately try to refocus on the debt without reference to anything else. The consequence? The most regressive- and economically risky- Budget since the early 1980s. And we haven’t had the public spending review yet….
Though we have had a preview: investment for the many cut, eg Building Schools for Future, to focus spending on the few- Free Schools.
More unfairness in the pipeline….
July 11th, 2010 at 19:54
Let’s focus on the issues in your post instead. Discussing every mistake Labour has made for the last decade and how they could have been avoided might take some time.
On your subsequent point I’m sure your party will attack every cut as unfair and inflate every decision as an attack on something or other, whilst offering an alternative based on the economics of pure fantasy. I believe Labour in the early 1980s tried the same tactics. Good luck with that.
July 11th, 2010 at 20:20
Andy, thanks for replying. This blog is not meant to be about party political point scoring so I’ll leave it there if that’s OK. There will be an election in 2015 where we can pick all these things up…..hopefully an election under AV…