George Osborne: what a ‘mug’…

I couldn't find an Osborne Mug - this will have to do...

Apparently, according to Osborne, those who commit benefit fraud are ‘muggers’. In a very gentlemanly manner, Osborne denounced a very small section of the population (and welfare population in fact), by doing what the Tories do best: generalising a very atypical example as representative of a systematic problem. Once again, there is a very specific and bias definition of ‘mugger’ – basically those who don’t work or something like that, and they have to be very poor – he doesn’t want to go calling his friends in the city ‘muggers’, does he?

This is precisely the problem; there was some talk at the LibDem conference regarding cutting down tax avoidance and tax evasion – but over and over again we have welfare debates framed within the perimeters of ‘welfare scroungers’. Consider Osborne’s comments on Andrew Marr this morning:

“This is a fight. We are really going to go after the welfare cheats. Frankly, a welfare cheat is no different from someone who comes up and robs you in the street. It’s your money. You’re leaving the house at seven in the morning or whatever to go to work and paying your taxes – and then the person down the street is defrauding the welfare system. This money is paid through our taxes which is meant to be going to the most vulnerable in our society, not into the pockets of criminals.”

This type of irresponsible characterisation, the atypical and generalised stereotype that New Labour perfected when it came to groups such as sex workers, is a major problem when it comes to governmental action. It stirs up hatred. It is the same type of irresponsible behaviour that promotes racist attitudes as it undermines consideration of the root problems; the sources for why people commit benefit crime. Granted, there will be the odd few who actually commit welfare crime as they feel like it. But, there are many who commit it for a means to an end. A living.

With £83bn cuts expected to be announced on Wednesday, Osborne cannot sit there and preach to people who are often acting in accordance to the inadequate benefit system and sometimes unsustainable poor wages, that they are somehow ‘muggers’. It illustrates how divorced from reality he is. This out of touch attitude, where people’s agency and concerns for livelihood are disregarded as criminal offences; without understanding why they would engage in such activity, is a major concern when it comes to public policy.

The government’s inability to use valid academic evidence, and their continual playing up to media propaganda and moral panics, is a major obstacle when it comes to achieving social justice. Consider Clegg’s recent complete misuse of figures. Or consider the last, and looks like current government’s, misuse of figures, resources and evidence regarding sex work. And now consider the ways in which Osborne is choosing to stigmatise a very small group of people, and scapegoat them so as there is someone else to take your frustrations out upon when the cuts start to bite.

It is very much like what Stuart Hall wrote about in regards to the ‘muggers’ crisis in the 1980s. Black young males were scapegoated in order to take attention away from fundamental economic , social and political problems – such as the oil crisis. The same thing is happening now. Much like when the Bulger case resulted in single mothers being scapegoated. Or like the way in which Baby P case was seen as a very ‘stereotypical’ example of the empirically flawed ‘underclass’ concept.

The stereotypes will continue to exist. It’s a major backbone for how UK government seems to work now. What we need to do is show Osborne that he is the mug, and that he should not underestimate the power of the people when it comes to the level of illogical decisions this government is making. Let’s show France they aren’t the only ones who know how to protest.

Coalition’s economic policy: demand focused, non-green and regressive ’80s style…

We are retrenching back into the 1980s, especially when considering the current onslaught upon the welfare and benefit systems. The government’s economic policies are in a utter mess, with them focusing upon the demand side whilst ignoring the supply. There are a number of recent announcements that should send fear through any progressive. The belated LibDem amendment/rebellion is progress but can only do little to offset the tide. Consider for example, IDS’s argument for changes to the law so that those in council houses who fail to obtain work could move to another part of the country where there is work and still be guaranteed a council house.

This rather misses the point. The reason for why many people are on benefits without work is because there is a shortage in labour – and with the current attack on jobs, the job market will become even more static. Therefore, the government needs to stop trying to make out that the problem is with the demand and realise that there is a need for investment and restructuring of supply – there is the need for real investment in jobs, but as in the 1980s – this side of economic theory is rather conveniently missed by the Tories (and now the LibDems).

As well as a cut on jobs, the government is intent on cutting the welfare bill – no wonder a recent report has found that when accounting for public spending cuts the budget will result in the poorest being 20.5% worse off, whereas the richest will only be 1.6%! Osborne has now also admitted that incapacity benefits will be cut – arguing that it is a “very large benefit”. Again, there is a failure here to understand the supply side of the economic argument. There are many jobs that are frankly breaking the DDA – as they fail to provide services and accessibility for everyone. It is unacceptable that disabled people could be punished by a cut in their benefit or forced into work due to the government and employers being too weak to radically reform society so that we reduce and remove social barriers that prevent disabled people from accessing all areas of society.

No longer should we focus upon the demand side, arguing that it is disabled people themselves who are unable to work because of their impairment – we should instead recognise that it is often the inability of society to provide services that prevents many disabled people from working. However, frankly, this is one of the many bi products of the ineffective capitalist system we live in.

The current governmental strategy (economic specifically) also misses the chance to really reshape the economy so that there is greater investment and focus upon a green future. A Green Deal would have been economically valuable – it would have created thousands of jobs, helped our failing manufacturing industry and would help addressed some of these supply and demand issues that the government are getting rather confused.

Does a LibDem rebellion have a leg to stand on anyway?

Last night on Question Time, Vince Cable looked like a true Tory. As one audience member said, I never thought I’d see the day where Cable is more right-wing than the Mail columnist. And that he was, as he provided full support for the ‘free schools’ policy, something the LibDems used to criticise - but it is hardly suprising Cable has ‘changed’ his mind, once considering the hug ‘u-turn’ he did in regards to cutting. Vince Cable is even now joining in the defense of the VAT increase, saying it isn’t that regressive after all, and even purporting, as Osborne did, the increased cutting of welfare benefits. Many believed that Cable was once a social democrat on the left of the LibDems, I am as amazed as them to see how right-wing Cable is becoming. Once a very respected man, is turning into the Tories’ regressive shield – as shown by the fact that he was the one to go on QT in budget week.

I have been amazed by some of the LibDem criticisms to the oppositional parties, not just Labour – who have rightful worries about the budget. Yes, Labour did contribute to the situation we are in. But with the need for investment after the Tory crusade on jobs and the public sector from the 80s-90s, and then the economic crisis needing the government to provide insulation for failing banks etc to protect the economy, there are some good reasons why they did so – something, I remember the LibDems once supported (this is not to deny that Labour did make some stupid decisions and have spent and introduced measures that have made things a lot worse than it could have been).

Mark Thompson argued for example, that Labour (and other oppositional parties such as The Greens) are not reflecting public opinion citing one poll that showed only a fraction more of the public approving the budget than those who disapprove. This discounts the fact that the LibDems have gone down the polls drastically, a clear reflection that their own supporters don’t like the measures so keenly as many LibDems like Clegg are making out. Furthermore, it doesn’t take into account the sound intellectual analyses by researching bodies, charities and so forth – who one by one are illustrating in various ways the damage that this budget will do. The most clearest example of this is the Institute of Fiscal Studies. But then Clegg tried to get around it by arguing that it doesn’t take into account the ‘progressive’ policies the government is going to implement in the future. For one, this then undermines their own attempts to provide such an analysis now, but two – ‘progressive’? Do you mean those future cuts, such as to the welfare budget, by any chance?

The potential amendment rebellion has been squashed, after Hughes has been forced to deny that he actually meant he would challenge the budget to make it more fair – when that was exactly what he was saying. However, have LibDems such as Hughes really got a leg to stand on? After all – they did vote for the deal. Are you seriously telling me that they thought the deal would amount to the progressive policies that they wanted? At least LibDems such as Mark Thompson are accepting the budget, as after all a deal with the Tories they knew would result in the type of polices we have seen. As I have said before, only Kennedy as a LibDem MP commands any respect as a rebel, as he was the only one who stuck his hand up and voted against the coalition as he knew exactly the type of policies and budget that would result from a Tory led coalition.

ConDem’s Budget, as expected, is no way near fair…

There has and is much talk about various tests that can be used to measure how fair the budget is. Every possible test that has been provided from a left/progressive focus (most right wingers define fair when the businesses and rich get more benefits – yes, the rich have many state benefits) when applied to the measures announced in today’s budget show how unfair the proposals are.

The whole “its Labour’s cuts” is getting rather tedious. The LibDems are even trying to scapegoat David Milliband’s ’failure’ to voice his support for a LibLab coalition deal during the talks, despite the fact Milliband wasn’t involved in the talks and that Labour rightly couldn’t accept the LibDems changed position on the ‘need’ for deep and faster cuts.

Specifically considering the budget, the public sector has been scapegoated. Welfare budget will see 11bn cut from it, considering that there are to be about 60,000 jobs lost over the course of the parliament this will only further the inequality in society (I wrote about the need for an increase in benefits yesterday). Public sector pay has been frozen, which will equate to a cut when considering inflation will likely rise in the upcoming future . There will be 77% public spending cuts. There will also be a report into how to ‘improve’ the private sector in areas of country where it is not ‘strong enough’. Nothing about this is fair. It is a clear attack on the most vulnerable, with little consideration of  the need for taxes such as land tax, higher (than proposed) CGT and a Tobin tax that would have seen those most able paying the most.

There is a clear ideological desire to cut. The LibDems defense of the budget has been rather sickening to say the least. Vince Cable once seen as a social democrat, is becoming one of the most prolific Tory supporters in the LibDems. As Dianne Abbott expressed earlier:

“The Lib Dems… bottled it… The only thing they got out of it is cheaper cider.”

There is a clear attack on local government too – partly because of the price paid for the so called ‘Big Society’. The FT report on how the local government have been cutting (preparing) back non legal required services before the budget, but that with the future cuts to their budgets they will have to cut back legal requirement services too. This will not be helped by the proposed council tax freeze, something that has been said to be progressive. If you freeze, whilst also demanding the councils to cut their budgets, this is only going to lead to an even greater undermining of key public services. Another ‘progressive’ measure that has been slammed is the corporation tax - considering that there are estimates that the large companies already a lot of the time only pay around 20% tax – the reduction will see large companies (such as banks) paying less on tax than many people who simply can’t afford the rates (and increased rates – e.g. VAT).

Nothing about this budget is progressive. Their distributional analysis is screwed, and it is exactly like Thatcher’s budgets: attack on public sector, the vulnerable and an increase in inequality and unemployment - all risking a double dip recession.