The Tories' transparent agenda

As Budget Day looms, George Osborne has laid out plans to give taxpayers a detailed breakdown of how their taxes are spent in the name of transparency and accountability. According to Exchequer Secretary David Gauke, "We want to make tax more transparent and we want people to be more engaged with their own tax affairs".

Let's not kid ourselves that the initiative has anything to do with transparency or openness – it is instead about re-enforcing a neo-liberal assault on public spending.

The cognitive linguist George Lakoff – in his fascinating book Don’t Think of An Elephant – explores how conservatives consistently win political debates through their control and manipulation of language. Lakoff’s basic idea is “framing”, the idea that appropriate language can create a framework evoking a set of concepts supporting your point of view. Just as our natural reaction when someone says “don’t think of an elephant” is to think of an elephant, our natural reaction when someone says “look how much you’re spending in tax towards health” is to think we’re spending too much.

The mainstream media has neatly mimicked and echoed this discourse. BBC Breakfast News, the Telegraph and the Daily Mail – with varying degrees of vitriol – have focused on specific fields – particularly welfare, health and education – where the government are making the most brutal cuts. The fact that the political and media establishment have focused on these areas – rather than, say, Defence spending – demonstrates the real target of this policy.

The "frame" for Osborne's idea is not about increasing accountability, engagement or transparency. The implication is that social spending – on health, education or welfare – is inherently wasteful. If people can physically see where their taxes go, they are more likely to support the Conservatives’ austerity measures.

Labour cannot oppose the move – based as it is on 'progressive' values such as openness and accountability – but it can change the field of debate in three ways:

Firstly, in terms of value for money. According to the Treasury, someone earning £25,000pa contributes £743.26 towards education. As someone who received free education until the age of 18, it seems like a bargain – especially when you consider any children I have are entitled to free education too. Under £1,000 for full medical cover on the NHS also looks like a snip – especially when you compare it to the cost of private health insurance.

Secondly, in terms of real transparency. Osborne’s proposal will show us which areas our taxes are going to, but it won’t show us who they are going to. Where is the breakdown of how public taxes are being used to subsidise big business? Whether it’s bailing banks out during the financial crisis; subsiding multinationals such as Tesco through Workfare; or bankrolling private companies like A4e in the Work Programme – the Left must shape the debate to show the real abuse of taxpayers’ money.   

And finally, how about publishing a register of how taxpayers benefit from public spending – from museums, galleries and libraries to parks, roads and hospitals? As the Con Dem attack on public institutions continues unabated, it might prove a valuable historical document.

Shake Your Moneymaker, Mr Osborne

"I've got the brains, you've got the looks. Let's make lots of money"

Prior to the World Cup in 1998, the England football squad famously amused themselves by dropping song titles into media interviews. Talismanic centre-half Tony Adams declared “I’m so excited” about the upcoming championship whilst Alan Shearer insisted the team were keeping their feet on the ground and not “dancing on the ceiling”. It was a bunch of rich kids playing a harmless game. And even Alan Shearer was funny.

Fast-forward 13 years and a different bunch of rich kids – the coalition government – are playing a much more dangerous game with our economy. Where Shearer and co. referenced well-known 80s tunes, we now have Osborne et al regurgitating stale references to the "economic mess" the previous Labour government left us in. And whilst England's japes earned them a few quid in bets with teammates, the coalition's financial tomfoolery is going to cost us all dearly. The only 80s throw-back being cited now is Maggie Thatcher. 

Re-worded, re-packaged and repeated ad infinitum, the phrase has prefixed Conservative and Lib Dem responses to every question since the formation of the coalition:

"How many slices of toast for breakfast, George?" asks Mrs Osborne.

"Two please – although if it wasn't for the economic mess Labour left us with, I could probably afford to have three ... and make sure you serve them on our Ming Dynasty plates," replies our humble Chancellor.

We have been pummelled into merciless submission and bitter acceptance through its endless repetition. It has allowed the government to force through ruthless cuts by sidelining Labour and marginalising economic alternatives.  

However – although it is a powerful political weapon to relentlessly demonise Labour's economic record – it is also a double-edged sword. It does indeed damage Labour's credibility, but it also creates a culture of gloom and cynicism that undermines consumer and business confidence. The irony is that – whilst the economy under the Con-Dems flat lines – Labour’s more interventionist policy saved us from depression and sowed the seeds of growth through positive action and investment.

According to Ernst & Young Item Club, our recovery has slowed and our economy has "stalled at a dangerous junction". The simple reason for this stagnation is that – because government economic chauvinism has engendered low confidence – banks are not lending and people are not spending. Furthermore, draconian austerity and rising unemployment further erodes confidence.

As David Blanchflower, Professor of Economics at Dartmouth College, states in an open letter to George Osborne: 

It hasn't helped that you have described the economy as "bankrupt" when clearly it was not, and also compared the British economy with that of Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, which are locked in monetary union, do not have their own central bank and cannot depreciate their currency or engage in credit easing. With such unpatriotic talk, you and other coalition leaders have caused business and consumer confidence... to collapse. They are at frighteningly low levels and I suspect they will fall a lot further unless you act quickly. 

Negative rhetoric is essential to force through ideological cuts to public services and welfare provision, but by constantly talking-down the economy, the government has undermined our chances of recovery. The economy requires positive language and action to flourish. From cutting VAT, payroll tax-breaks, bringing back the Future Jobs Fund, linking corporation tax to unemployment or introducing a Robin Hood Tax and Tobin Tax, there are numerous policies which would increase employment and stimulate growth.

If economics – like football – is a game of two halves, then now is the time for some inspirational half-time words and positive substitutions from the gaffer. The coalition might be committing economic suicide, but with unprecedented and irreversible public sector cuts, they’ll go down in history as hard-nosed neo-liberal martyrs.

Eyes on Power’s Guide to the Cuts

The government’s Comprehensive Spending Review has outlined some of the most extreme and – in the view of EoP– aggressively regressive and unnecessary cuts in the history of modern Britain. We’ve picked out some of the most important areas and tried to get behind the spin.

Defence: 42 000 armed forces personnel and MoD civil servants to lose jobs
Who will it affect? Private sector growth is meant to absorb public sector workers – but there are few private sector equivalents to the army, RAF and Royal Navy. A significant proportion of homeless people in the UK are ex-armed forces whilst ex-serviceman disproportionately struggle to find work when they return to civilian life and can often struggle with drug and alcohol dependency. But as least we have money for a brand new aircraft carrier – even if we can’t afford any aircraft to go on it.

Benefits #1: Council Tax Benefit to be cut by 10%
Who will it affect? Everyone in receipt of Council Tax Benefit – from pensioners to people with disabilities. The effect will price low income families out of affluent areas and will exacerbate the divide between the prosperous South East and the rest of the UK. Local authorities will determine rules for paying benefit – which feels like a major cop-out from the government and attempt to shift blame.

Benefits #2: Housing Benefit, Jobseekers Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Employment Support Allowance and Disability Living Allowance to be merged into Single Credit
Who will it affect? Everyone in receipt of state benefit – from those incapable of working to single parents. The “catch-all” approach of a Single Credit will abandon all bespoke benefits aimed at helping different people with different needs. This will make it harder for people to return to work, particularly those furthest from the labour market – including young people, ex-servicemen, care leavers, ex-criminals, people with substance abuse problems, lone parents and people with mental and physical health issues.

Benefits #3: Claimants will face a reduction in benefit after 12 months of unemployment
Who will it affect? With £20bn of immediate cuts to the benefit system, long-term unemployment will become entrenched. There is reduced state support for back to work schemes whilst all incentives to encourage employers to recruit long-term unemployed people – including the Local Employment Partnerships, Employer Subsidies and Future Jobs Fund – have been abandoned. The new measures will force people out of affluent areas, ghettoise communities and unfairly hit young people and women.

Health: NHS budget to rise every year
Who will it affect? Protecting health spending was a key Tory election pledge – but we have already demonstrated in whose interest the decision was made.

Economy: 24 quangos to be axed
Who will it affect? As George Monbiot demonstrated, the government have carefully abolished quangos associated with protecting the environment, animal welfare and the arts but have protected – or adapted – those which promote and protect corporate profit.

Arts funding: 30% cut to Arts Council but free entry to museums to continue
Who will it affect? Mainly regional arts-based projects including theatres, orchestras arts venues and festivals. Only 15% of the cuts from £449.5m to £349m in the next four years are supposed to affect “front-line” funding, but in real terms the Arts Council estimates over 100 organisations will lose financial support. The pledge to keep free entry to museums will favour the national London-based museums, with regional museums and arts projects being left behind.

Media: BBC licence fee frozen for 6 years
Who will it affect? Everyone paying for a TV licence will not see any increases and free licences for over 75s have been protected. But these concessions can only be afforded by the government relinquishing responsibility for the World Service, and Welsh Language broadcaster SC4. The BBC will now have to swallow these budgets. There were hints that the corporation feared worse, but the 16% cut in funding will undoubtedly have a negative effect on programme quality, employment opportunities, and niche radio services like 6Music.

Transport: Cap on rail fares removed from 2012 but Crossrail stays
Who will it affect? People who cannot afford the running costs of a car and commuters who buy season tickets. The current price cap limits fares to 1% above inflation, but from 2012 this will increase to 3%, meaning fares are likely to rise by 5.8%. This may not sound like much, but for a Brighton to London commuter, it will mean a £1,000 increase on their season ticket. Meanwhile the £16bn Crossrail project that will bring faster trains on tube routes has been retained, another project that will benefit Londeners and perhaps a political move to help Boris Johnson get re-elected as mayor 2012.

Science: Research budget ringfenced at £4.6bn
Who will it affect? Academics, practitioners, everyone? The benefits of scientific advances over the years are unquestionable. When rumours emerged that the research budget may be cut up to 25% weeks ago, it caused outrage from scientists in the UK. Even 'Scientists for Labour' sent a delegate to the conference last month to raise their concerns about budget cuts. Today's announcement that the research budget will be kept at £4.6bn for the next four years appears to be good news for scientists. It actually represents a cut in real terms of 10% over the four years.

Local Government: Council funding to be cut 7.1%pa and ring-fenced grants abolished
Who will it affect? The government are championing local government reform as devolving power but it really means shifting responsibility for cuts. Many councils will use the auspices of government restrictions to outsource services, cut departments and privatise provisions. Those hit hardest will be those most in need of state support and areas dependent on the public sector for employment – such as the North-East and Wales.

Education : Real-term cut of 3.4% funding over four years. Direct funding protected with school budgets rising from £35-£39bn. £2.5bn pupil premium for ‘disadvantaged’ pupils. Sure Start protected. EMA scrapped.
Who will it affect? This is an interesting mixture and of course does not tell the full story. On the surface it would appear that the vulnerable are protected but if you couple these announcements with previous Tory policies of building less schools and encouraging ‘independent’ academies, the true picture emerges – more money in private hands and an insufficient amount of funding for the state sector. Again, the undermining of the universality of what should be a fundamental right underpins the Tories’ whole approach here.

Justice: 14 000 jobs to be axed – 20% from frontline prison, probation and court services. Extra prison building programmes scrapped. Police budget to be cut by 4% a year.
Who will it affect? Cuts in legal representation will of course hit poor people the hardest. In addition, less prison places will not mean that there is likely to be an appreciable drop in the numbers of people being sent to prison, just that an even more overcrowded, unsafe and generally unfit prison system will be created. Cutting the police budget will have effects on front-line services from police response times to victim support.

Spending: Government departments to be cut on average by 19% over parliament
Who will it affect? An estimated 500 000 public sector workers will lose their job – not to mention local government employees and private sector contractors dependent on public finance. Employees on fixed-term contracts and part-time hours (mostly women) will be the likeliest to go. The cut in public services will adversely hit poorer and more vulnerable people as they are reliant on state provisions.

We will of course be returning to the subject of cuts in more detail, but in the meantime why not let us know what you think of the cuts? Do you agree that cuts are necessary to reduce the deficit? Or do you think the fetishisation of deficit reduction is distracting from the need for a real structural change in our society?

Welfare state under attack

George Osborne’s announcement that child benefit will be cut for high earners is a blatant and cynical example of political prestidigitation and policy misdirection. Osborne’s contention that “it’s very difficult to justify taxing people on low income to pay for the child benefit of those earning so much more” threatens to end welfare state universalism and reduce it to a safety net. The move erodes the legitimacy of a welfare system which relies on universal benefits to give mandate to redistributive state spending. If middle and high earners no longer receive universal benefits then it fundamentally undermines the intellectual premise of our welfare state and questions other overarching benefits such as the state pension and the NHS.

But the curbing of child benefit is not just about challenging universalism, it also acts to mask more punitive welfare cuts. The vocal middle-classes affected by the cuts will distract media attention from other austerity measures and, as Deputy Political Editor of the BBC James Landale states, the move gives Osborne “political cover for other cuts that will affect the less well off”. It gives credence to the dictum “we’re all in this together” and attempts to justify Draconian benefit cuts for the most vulnerable. After all, if those horribly oppressed middle-class parents are paying the price of recession, why shouldn’t an impoverished pensioner in Middlesbrough?

The subsequent proposal to cap state benefit at £26,000 further demonstrates the government’s desire to attack not just the welfare state, but the most unprotected and defenceless in society. The planned cap will apply to combined household income from benefits including Jobseekers’ Allowance, housing benefit, council tax benefit and child benefit but without variations to correct for regional differences in the cost of living, it will serve to further ghettoise the country. With housing benefit to be reduced year on year, it will not be long before London and the whole South East is purged of all those reliant on benefits.

The Conservative cuts are not simply about tackling the deficit. At best they are aimed at reducing the welfare state to an unrecognisable husk and, at worst, they are aimed at cleansing the South of undesirables. The government may advocate a small state – but when the state determines where citizens can and can’t live through social engineering – it seriously challenges positive and maximalist conceptions of liberty, freedom and equality of opportunity.