Tuesday 15-10-27 George Osborne in "Listening Mode"

So, with all the kerfuffle over tax credits over the last couple of days, it has been an interesting time to watch BBC Parliament TV. Watching the Lords overturn the government's attempt to turn tax credits on their heads through the use of a Statutory Instrument was particularly pleasing. Osborne and the government should have realised that this was going to be a controversial measure, and they should have approached this properly, through a financial bill or an amendment to a bill. In that way, the Lords would not have been able to send it back to the Commons - as they are not, by law, allowed to veto a money or financial bill. As it was, the govt. wanted to curtail discussion in the House of Commons and so introduced this measure in a Statutory Instrument, which meant that MPs could only approve or veto the measure, but not adapt it. And of course, no Tory MP vetoed it, despite the fact that some of them argued against approving it.
After the House of Commons had approved the measure, and before the Lords kicked it back last night, Osborne faced questions from the Treasury committee. He declared that he was "comfortable" with the "judgement call" he had made. At that stage, despite the protestations of the members in the House of Commons, he was completely sure of his position and he was going to forge ahead with the cuts as proposed.

He was in "listening mode" before the Lords' vote, and apparently offered that if they kept their motion to a "motion of regret", i.e., they would let the SI (Statutory Instrument) pass, then he would look and see if there was anything he could do. That seems to me to be the wrong way round, and it seems the Lords thought so too. Good. In my opinion, in the same way that he pointed to the Commons majority as support for his plans, he would have taken the approval of the Lords as a sign that they agreed with his policies, and I expect that there would have been no changes to the cuts. This is just my opinion, but when you take how relaxed and "comfortable" he was in front of the Treasury Committee, I can only think that the passing of the motion would have been what he relied on in the future. After all, what people say, and the points raised during debates, fade into the mists of time eventually, and all that is left is the result of the vote.

The picture above is taken from the interview he gave after the defeat of the SI in the Lords. During that interview he claimed that he was in listening mode and had been in listening mode as previously advised. Listening isn't doing, though. Listening isn't changing policy to mitigate the impacts on the lowest paid. Listening isn't providing an alternative motion.

I don't believe that George Osborne would have made any changes to this legislation if he hadn't had it thrown back in his face. And that did need to happen. Taking money away from those on the lowest rung of the ladder is the cruellest and most vicious thing to do. People rely on tax credits to pay for their heating, or their rent, or food to put on the table. To take that away is to remove their reason to work, and I am sure that more people would end up out of work as a result.

I hope that George Osborne does really review and rethink his plans, so that the worst off in our society are not adversely and disproportionately impacted. But I have a sneaking suspicion that they will not escape unscathed. I hope that people are aware of what he was trying to do, and I hope that they can remember that in 2020, when it's time to vote again for who we want in charge. But fate is fickle, and if things start going well, and if the economy turns around, it may be that there is a feel-good factor; after all, a rising tide lifts all boats, or at least that's what they say. But at the moment, with inflation at zero, and growth slowing, things are not looking good. If there is one silver lining among the gathering clouds, it is that those on tax credits are not going to be more destitute than they already are - or at least, that's how it looks at the moment.

Tuesday 15-10-13 The Frailty of Power

I'd like to preface this by saying I don't have, or I don't believe that I have, particularly strong political beliefs. I think I've voted Tory before, because I thought John Major was actually a decent chap. I voted Labour in 1997, along with most other people. And I've voted Lib Dem as well, when I thought they were offering the best view of the future / there was no realistic alternative. So I don't think I have any strong preference for any particular political party.

I've heard the Tories justify their policies with the line that the nation have voted for these policies, that they won the election and they are only carrying out the wishes of the majority. I don't think that's quite true, and I think that the Conservatives have cause for concern.

In the General Election in May 2015, 30.7 million people voted out of a possible 46.4 million registered to vote, or deemed eligible to vote. That is a turnout of 66.1%, or two thirds of the voting public. Of those, 11.3 million people voted conservative, or 36.9%. So out of the voting public, 11.3 out of 46.4 million voted Tory. That's less than 25% of the voting population. And in addition to that, the Conservatives only have a twelve seat majority. 

Now, I am not saying that the other 75% would vote against the Tories. I think a large percentage of the UKIP voters would vote Tory, if UKIP disappeared, and they may vote Tory tactically next time around, seeing that even though 3.8 millions voted UKIP, they only got one MP. And the DUP and UUP would probably also vote Tory or support the Tories in a coalition if needed. 

What I am saying, though, is that with a majority of only 12, and only having support of less than 25% of the population, I think the Tories are following a high-risk strategy in cutting tax credits two years before the new "living wage" (which isn't the same as the living wage promoted by the Living Wage Foundation) comes into effect. And I think it is a little rich for people the likes of Osborne and Cameron to keep banging on about "living within one's means". That's easy enough for them, when one is likely to become a Baronet, and the other is a well-paid leader of nations. I can live within my means, and I am actually managing to pay down some of my debts, albeit slowly. But even for me, payday can't come quickly enough. For those people who earn less, who qualify for working tax credits, life in 2016 is going to get a lot more bleak. They are going to be in work, but not earn enough to live on. 

A constant stream of MPs have lined up to stress that with all the other changes, actually people won't be any worse off. But I don't believe them. In order to get the sums to add up, you have to add in extra childcare allowance, when there is no guarantee that they have kids, higher tax thresholds  - which we all benefit from - and other benefits available to everyone - not just those on working tax credits. I will benefit from higher tax thresholds. So will George and David. But they, and I, don't need their wages bumped up with tax credits. Nor do they rely on that income to buy necessities like food or gas or electricity or travel, so that they can live. They don't need to worry about how they are going to replace that income stream for the two years before the minimum wage rises to £9.50. And even then, that won't be the "living wage", because the living wage (as recommended by the LWF) takes into account tax credits.

I started writing this article before last week's Question Time, and it seems that the same has occurred to other people. I heard on the news this morning that this could be another poll tax moment, and now it is being reported that up to 71 tory MPs in marginal seats could lose their majority at the next election.

The Tories came to power promising that they would balance the books, and pay down the deficit, but I don't think anyone was expecting them just to stop paying benefits to the poorest among us. Now that people have seen the plans and assessed the impact, they're not happy. I am not saying I know what the answer is, but to be so brazen about this is not the way forward. 

Thursday 15-06-11 Selling the Nation

So, George Osborne reckons it's time to sell off the RBS shares.  He's been advised by Rothschild and the Bank of England that the time is now. I wonder who will take care of the sale for the government? It wouldn't be Rothschild, would it? I wonder who will actually make money out of this sale? The government, and therefore, we the people, aren't going to make any money. The shares are going to be sold at a loss, despite the fact that we've held these shares for seven years. RBS keep getting pinged for illegal business practices, and other assorted penalties. It's almost like they weren't being regulated those few years ago...
I have some shares personally in RBS, and they cost me about £100. They are still worth about £100. I'm not going to sell them until they're worth about £200. I don't know how long it's going to take, but I can hold onto them until then. I think the govt. should take the same approach. Ironically, on the news that Osborne was going to sell the shares, the price went up by 8p. That's not going to change my fortunes but it's a move in the right direction. Another 42p, and it would be worth selling. As it is, the govt. has an asset and they can sell it only once. Selling those shares now, at this price, is a mistake. Combine that with the sale of the shares in the Post Offoce, and it looks like there will be no assets left for any future govt. The good thing about valuable assets which keep appreciating in value, is that they create wealth and mean that the general population don't have to contribute so much in tax. Anyone would think, looking at the current general sell-off, that the Tory Govt. would like to keep the general population under the yoke. That can't possibly be the case, can it?