Boy George (Osborne), DC (Cameron) and Cleggy have all ardently claimed that the recent “emergency budget” was hardwired into being a “progressive” budget and that the poor would be shielded from the upcoming years of austerity and that in the words of DC, “we are all in this together”…….what he forgot to add was “…unless you’re rich but you’re particularly in if you’re poor”.
A recent report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), Britain’s leading independent tax organisations completely destroyed the coalitions claims that the budget is “progressive” but rather describing it as “clearly regressive as, on average, they hit the poorest households more than those in the upper middle of the income distribution in cash, let alone percentage, terms.”. Yes, you read the quote correctly; it hits the poorest harder in cash never mind percentage terms!
The IFS also said the poorest 10% of families would lose over 5% of their income as a result of the budget compared with a loss of less than 1% for non-pensioner households without children in the richest 10% of households. It added that the budget contrasted with the “progressive” plans for 2010-14 inherited from Labour, under which the richest 10% of households bore the brunt of the cuts.
Leaving aside whether it is a right or wrong descision to attempt to remove the structural deficit within 5 years, I can assure you know that the coalition will turn round and you use one of the oldest tricks in the books, blame the predecessors. Well let me say, don’t you even dare, don’t even dare, this is now totally the coalition’s doing. This is what happens when you have severe changes to housing benefit, disability allowances, tax credits and a deficit reduction plan that is totally out of balance in terms of cuts to taxation.
We all knew the Tories where bulling when DC stated that “we are all in this together” and that the Lib Dems had sold themselves out on economic policy, but now we have conclusive proof from a well respected independent body, all we can say now is, need we say more…
Max
Max – Its funny how you publicise this yet you failed to publicise how strongly the markets reacted to it, the fact it was praised as “courageous” by Barack Obama and the fact it was largely recieved well by economic thinktanks across the country and the wider world. If you won’t listen to anyone else perhaps you need to heed a few words from the former Chancellor your own Alasdair Darling;
“Lt’s not pretend that somehow that we can just ignore it (the deficit). If we do, we will lose the crucial argument that you can reduce borrowing fairly, while supporting jobs and investing in the key areas of the future”
“Darling wanted to commit Labour to a VAT rise at the election as part of plans to tackle the deficit – but was vetoed by Mr Brown, a move seen as putting the political intrest before the national interest.”
“Whoever wins the next election will have to implement cuts tougher than anything Margaret Thatcher did”
“Labour lost because it failed to recognise public concern over spiralling government debt, instead getting sidetracked into an argument for investment over cuts.”
“Labour has lost economic credibility”
“Lt’s not pretend that somehow that we can just ignore it (the deficit). If we do, we will lose the crucial argument that you can reduce borrowing fairly, while supporting jobs and investing in the key areas of the future”
Labour made no attempt to ignore the deficit. The tories are making no attempt to support jobs and invest in key areas of the future.
“Darling wanted to commit Labour to a VAT rise at the election as part of plans to tackle the deficit – but was vetoed by Mr Brown, a move seen as putting the political intrest before the national interest.”
Whereas the coalition is putting one kind of national interest – that of the city – before another, and arguably more important kind – that of the less well off in society.
“Whoever wins the next election will have to implement cuts tougher than anything Margaret Thatcher did”
“Have to” … or maybe implement moderate cuts which would gradually decrease the budget without risking liveihoods
“Labour lost because it failed to recognise public concern over spiralling government debt, instead getting sidetracked into an argument for investment over cuts.”
Describing something the government proposes on ideological grounds as prompted by “public concern” is the oldest trick in the book.
“Labour has lost economic credibility”
Then let`s all hope we`re not heading for a double dip recession which really can`t help the coalition`s credibility…
How exactly did the economic thinktanks react to the budget? What precisely did they praise about it? Got any quotes from them? I suspect that you may have, as, according to further suspections that I hold, you likely have an entire library of quotations for use in any number of situations so some of them are bound to be of use I’m sure.
Dan that’s alll very worth while, but the point of the post is not to say that we should eliminate the deficit in five years or to halve in four years, it was point out the blatantly regressive nature of the policies being implemented.
Suzy has already repsonded to your response in more or less the same way I would’ve done had this post been about the rate of deficit reduction. Like she says, no one denies that we need to deal with the deficit, but the arguement to how is for a completely different post.
And a neat little quote from John Prescott’s Twitter “Can we now call Clegg and Osborne ‘Regressive Deniers?’”
I think Barack Obama chose the word ‘courageous’ very carefully.
According to Yougov, the Tories only led on the economy by 6% at the start of the campaign. By May 3rd, it was a 37/36 split. Hardly convincing in the wake of a recession.
Well said