Torybingogate

The 2014 Budget was predictable enough: savage attacks on environmentalism, treats for corporate Tory donors, pensioners abandoned to the mercies of the market, and bribes for core Tory voters: very much a standard election-year model.

What made it stand out was Tory chairman Grant Shapps' idea of appealing to the electorate in the form of this poster:

Presumably this was the work of some bright young thing in Tory HQ, but a number of senior people must have approved it for release. What's wrong with it? The use of 'they' distances the Conservatives and their government from 'hardworking people' which either seems arrogant or honest depending on whether you think our political leaders are hardworking or not. Then there's the assumption that the electorate are so simple as to be concerned only with 1p off beer tax and the implication that bingo is cheap.

It's almost as if the Conservative leadership still relates to the working classes like this:



So the tone's wrong, the positioning's wrong and on top of that, it's dishonest: the Bingo operators' association says that the tax break won't make a difference to their customers' charges at all. So it's just a gift to the gambling industry to encourage further Tory donations.

But there's another angle. We read all the time about parties' sophisticated electoral strategies, databanks, imported advisors etc. And yet it seems there's nobody with any understanding of the electorate and certainly nobody who has ever used the internet before. Could Grant Shapps – no stranger to online shenanigans – not foresee the mocking Twitterstorm that followed his encouragement to 'Please RT'. First came the horrified scorn. Then came the witty Tory Bingo calls with the hashtag #Torybingo, and finally along came Torybingo.com, which allows the likes of us to adapt the original template. Here are a couple of mine:

I assume that the Tories (and other parties) have heard of the phrase 'going viral' and want a chunk of it. What they haven't understood is that social media users have finely-attuned antennae for corporate propaganda, and a level playing field on which to fight it. This is, of course, why corporate interests are trying (and winning) the fight to turn the internet from an public square into a tightly-controlled pseudo-public space. Try as they might, institutions are too cumbersome and culturally-deaf to compete with the wit of some kid with Photoshop and no paymaster. Politicians and corporate executives get offended when we parody their products because they genuinely believe that the social hierarchies of meatspace are a) natural and b) should be reproduced online. Torybingo is just the latest in a pretty much infinite line of embarrassments.

The only down side is that while ridicule is a key weapon of postmodern resistance, it's not entirely clear whether it actually helps. For all this, the key Tory voter (rich white bitter older people) will vote in droves while the young and hip won't bother. Is this anything more than a passing amusement? I'm not sure.

Budget 2013: the lowlights

Morning everybody. Did you enjoy the budget? In the small print, all sorts of nasty shocks await anybody who might be ill, disabled, unemployed or poor: exactly what you'd expect from a government which sees its role as redistributing from 'shirkers' to 'strivers' (i.e. from the poor to their own Randian donors).

But what of the headline decisions?

• A new mortgage subsidy scheme
• 1p off beer duty
• A halt to petrol duty
• Corporation tax down, national insurance payments abolished for small companies

(And of course subsidies to the dead-end fossil fuel industry)

I should be overjoyed by these, and ready to vote Tory. I'm 37 and can't scrape together the cash for a deposit. On the Tory campaigners' database, I'm a prime candidate for membership of the Home Owning Democracy, that mass of people persuaded to switch to Conservatism in the 1980s. All they have to do is use taxpayers' money to lend me a deposit: after that, I can afford the monthly mortgage payments. It's a simple idea really: mortgage rates are historically low, but lots of people don't earn enough to save enough for the large deposits required to get a mortgage.

So why am I not jumping for joy and polishing my I Heart Maggie badge? Well, firstly I don't think there's an essential link between property ownership and full citizenship. It smacks of the 19th-century's requirement that only citizens owning property could vote, on the basis that everybody else had no 'stake' in the country. Secondly, we're in the midst of an obscene housing crisis. People on housing benefit are being forced out of their homes if they have a spare bedroom, even though there aren't nearly enough smaller dwellings. Pouring money into the housing market without building enough houses won't help people: it will increase house prices. Great for the Tory-voting Mail readers who see house prices rises as Progress, but it massively screws up the entire economy for home-owners and home-seekers alike. Remember the 90s: all those TV ads encouraging you to remortgage your house ('release the equity') to take advantage of the rising market to buy holidays and boob jobs and jacuzzis? It will all flood back, and this time, it's subsidised by the state. Not only that: they'll be helping people out up to the tune of £600,000 and include 2nd homes, so if you fancy getting yourself a holiday cottage at the expense of the poor, you're in luck – George Osborne will spend my taxes on your luxury lifestyle!

Am I more likely to buy a house under the new scheme? I doubt it. I don't like paying my landlord too much money for a cold, noisy and unmaintained flat, but a mortgage is little more than renting from a bank. I'll buy a house one day… that day being when my beloved parents fall down the stairs. That is, if they haven't blown the loot on cigars and gold-plated crucifixes and all the other things they like. As for the population which doesn't have an inheritance in sight: you won't just be no better off after this budget in housing terms, you'll be far worse off, because the state-subsidised boom will put even the humblest abode way out of reach again – and there won't be any social housing for you either.

So let's be clear: this is redistribution from the poor to the rich. Worse than that, it's not even aid for homebuyers: it's aid for the property developers who've crammed us into smaller, more expensive, badly-built hutches for generations. Coincidentally enough, they fund the Tory party.

Next up: the reduction in beer duty. Clearly this is just meant to get a cheery headline in the tabloids. Who could object to 'blokes' getting a slightly cheaper pint? Except of course, that we're meant to be concerned about binge drinking, and that it's economically meaningless. It won't even reduce beer prices much: like most tax cuts, it will inflate profit margins and shareholder prices rather than depress prices.

Petrol duty? Do I really have to remind everybody that burning fossil fuels is literally killing us and everything else on the planet? That the UK has the worst air quality in Europe? That this small island is crammed with overpowered, underoccupied vehicles spewing out poison? But this is a sop to White Van Man who doesn't give a damn about killing his own kids, let alone the bunny rabbits. And of course once again it's economically meaningless: compared with the profit margins of the oil producers and petrol refiners, a penny here or there makes no difference at all. Personally I'd be taxing engines ruthlessly, banning large, heavy and inefficient vehicles unless individuals have particular requirements, and generally making life very uncomfortable for people who choose selfishness over mass transit. (Though of course I'd be spending a hell of a lot more on public transport infrastructure and nationalising the lot).

Finally, the reductions in corporation taxes and NI employers' payments. These are the things which pay for schools, road, healthcare and everything else the state provides. Cutting corporation tax is meant to attract companies to set up here rather than elsewhere. It is, of course, nonsense. Ireland has a mega-low corporation tax. Companies appeared, then disappeared when some other barrel-scraper offered a further 1% off. When the crash came, the state didn't have enough money to maintain services or a decent way of life for its citizens because it pursued corporations without regard for the future or the people. It's a race to the bottom. The same goes for the NI cut. Will they improve the economy? Of course not: these cuts don't mean there's more money sloshing around to be spent on beer and cars and cinema tickets and corporate investment and higher wages and more jobs. British companies are notorious for exploiting their workforces. That money will be shovelled into management bonuses and shareholder dividends. It will go offshore where it can't be taxed and won't be recirculated into the UK economy. If it was properly taxed and fed into the Treasury, the government would get a boost, by spending it on new railway lines and hiring more tax inspectors etc…: that would get it flowing round the economy as salaries are spent on decking and nappies and dreamcatchers or whatever. That's what we need: more money in the hands of ordinary people who need things, not fattened executives' tax-evading yacht funds.

But what do I know?

New Economics With The Tories

I've made this poster to explain why the poor get their benefits cut, middle-earners pay more tax (yes, this includes me) and millionaires get a tax cut.

Make your own here.

1983 called: muttered something about plagiarism

I could have written this budget myself, given an 1983 copy of the Daily Telegraph's editorial and letters pages.

Cuts in fuel tax
Cuts in corporation tax
Increase in citizens' taxes
Abolition of 'red tape' (i.e. pesky health, safety and environmental protection)
More pollution
More lost jobs
Richer bankers - poorer everyone else
Growth restricted
Jam tomorrow.

And lo, it came to pass.

Klever Keystone Kops

Like every other public agency, the police are lobbying and spinning as hard as they can to resist budget cuts(the government resists by spinning worse cuts than they'll actually implement, to soften us up).

Unlike many others, the cops have come up with a brilliant line:

Everyone's going to be on the streets protesting your other budget cuts. If you cut our funding, there won't be enough of us to stop them marching on Downing Street and stringing you up from the lampposts.

I paraphrase, but that's basically the gist of it.

"In an environment of cuts across the wider public sector, we face a period where disaffection, social and industrial tensions may well rise," says Barnett in his draft speech to the annual police superintendents' conference, which takes place in Cheshire.

"We will require a strong, confident, properly trained and equipped police service, one in which morale is high and one that believes it is valued by the government and public."

'It's the lads, sarge. They want to crack lefty heads, but they're worried about their jobs. Knuckledusters cost money, y'know'.

 Got to admire that level of cunning!

Keep saying it and maybe we'll all believe it

'We're all in this together' is the Chancellor's mantra. He, like most of his Cabinet colleagues, is a multimillionaire.

He delivered his first budget yesterday. Do his decisions reflect our collective sharing of the burden?

Er, no.

Losers - us
Pay freezes in the public sector, regardless of inflation = pay cuts.
VAT up to 20% - this will hit the poor hardest.
Housing benefit capped at £400 per week for 4 bedroom houses, £280 per week for 1-bed. This sounds like a lot, but if you live in London or one of the more expensive cities, this is way less than the going rate. Currently in London, a 1-bedroom flat will cost you a minimum of £650. So if you're made unemployed, or you're a low earner, you are going to be made homeless.

The government's promise to cap housing payments at £280 a week for a one-bedroom property and £400 a week for a four-bedroom family home could make many properties unaffordable, especially for people in areas such as inner London.

Shelter's chief executive, Campbell Robb, said nearly half of tenants already found their housing benefit payments did not cover the rent. Most benefit claimants were pensioners and low paid workers, and many would end up in debt in an attempt to remain in their property.

Robb said: "If this support is ripped out suddenly from under their feet it will push many households over the edge, triggering a spiral of debt, eviction and homelessness."

Government department funding cut by 25% - e.g. services massively cut. Except for nuclear weapons.
Child benefit frozen = effective cut
Pensions linked to CPI not RPI = effective cut
National Insurance contributions - increased. Just another tax, as it's not ringfenced for pensions.
Sure Start maternity grant for poor mothers - abolished
Pregnancy health grant - abolished

The Winners
Capital Gains Tax up from 18% to 28% - speculation is still taxed at far less than income, so if you become a rackrent landlord rather than working at a normal job, you'll be highly rewarded for your attack on the community. Oh, and the first £5m is exempt for 'entrepreneurs', which is totally disgraceful. Still, the hedge fund traders will be happy.
Corporation Tax reduced 1% for each of the next four years. This stunned me. This really is evil. While the poor (see above) pay more and more, big business gets tax cuts to 'encourage investment'. This is, obviously, utter bullshit. They operate offshore, they avoid tax anyway, and they won't invest in this country, they'll pocket the extra cash. I'm toweringly angry about this one.

So in the end, it was a classic 1980s Thatcherite budget: more cash to business and the rich, paid for by cutting the services we all want and need. Fuck the poor, Up the Toffs.

People = gits

If you don't believe me, try the polling evidence:

59% of voters back cuts even if they lead to worse public services. Although 63% agree that the poor will suffer the most from the budget, only 22% think that people should be asked to pay more in tax.

I earn a good wage, probably the most I'll ever earn. If pain is to be inflicted by these Tory scum, I'd rather take it by paying more tax than cut public services, whether I use them or not.  I do object hugely to being taxed when speculators pay very little in capital gains, and to paying for the banking bailout, but I should pay more than the poor.

The prediction is that today's budget will increase VAT (sales tax, to you Americans) from 17.5% to 20%. This really is loading the misery onto the poor, because it's applied to most items, and so they will pay the same tax as the rich on things they really need. Income tax, on the other hand, is much more progressive: if you've got more, you pay more. 1% extra income tax on someone earning £75,000 won't hurt their lifestyle at all. A 2.5% VAT increase on virtually everything you buy will really hurt those on low incomes.

I'll be protected from the VAT rise to some extent: it's not (currently) levied on books or newspapers!

Darling! You were wonderful!

Full analysis later but: bloody good budget

How was the budget for you?

I'll be ever so slightly worse off, but not enough to make any difference.

In a move which will please Adam, bankers' bonuses aren't being taxed. The banks will be taxed 50% on their bonus pot. Hopefully the result will be that bankers are paid a regular salary which will be eligible for tax (bonuses aren't), leading to more responsible behaviour and more income for the government to spend on public services like, er… bailing out banks.

It wasn't much of a budget - the signals were more important than the economics, but there were some interesting bits, like funded internships for graduates without the money to do unpaid internships (which lots of rich kids do). That will certainly benefit some of my students.

Eat the rich!

Today's the big day when Alastair Darling announces his Pre-Budget Report, which is actually a mini-budget. It's a big job: claw money back from the fatcats, cut back public services and still persuade everyone to vote Labour in 5 months' time.

Follow the fun here.

Meanwhile over in Ireland, which is even more screwed through having 2 Tory parties vying to be the most capitalist, a second emergency budget is announced today (follow it here from 3.45 GMT). Just like the UK, ordinary workers are going to suffer because all the money's gone to bail out the banks which have bankrupted the country. Can anyone else see what's wrong with this picture?

How Can I Miss You If You Won't Go Away?

Anyone watch Newsnight last night? I was infuriated by the vox pops with a pair of bankers. One of them had the classic combination of long, greased-back hair, loud suit, louder shirt and yet louder tie. He looked, in fact, like a paedophile otter, and I say that as a relative rodent. With a straight face, he attacked the new 50% tax rate (which only applies to earnings above £150,000, not the whole pay-packet) as a class-driven way to pay for government mistakes, and threatened the emigration of the banking sector.

Er… isn't the country in massive amounts of debt because we've had to bail out pretty much all the banks? Yes, this and the previous government volunteered their services like desperate rent boys, but there's no getting round the fact that these bankers made millions personally while bankrupting the entire nation - and now they're squealing because we want a little more of their stratospheric pay in order to keep the country afloat. If they want to emigrate, brilliant. I can't think that many countries will be queuing up to avail themselves of bankers' services, but at least they'll be off our patch.

Perhaps we should start a letter writing campaign. Let's each adopt a merchant bank and send postcards every day encouraging these bastards to leave (or kill themselves).

(the title of this post is a country song: terrible music, great lyrics)

Frustration

Right - off fencing now, having got nothing substantial done today other than go to my meeting and work out that the budget will make me £99 better off over the course of a year. I'm planning to radically alter my fencing from tonight - towards the Hungarian style. Hand back, don't give them anything to engage, whip in the point from an acute angle. It looks so easy when good fencers do it…

Moneybox Live

I just had a quick trawl through the budget details: more tax for those on £150,000 is good, though I'm not sure how much it will raise. Pensions up, state redundancy allowances up, ISA allowances up - all good. Support for 'scrappage' and CCS - nonsense designed to keep the car manufacturers and power generators happy. Darling's figures depend on a sharp and fast recovery though, and it's not clear where he finds the justification for that. I guess if the £ stays weak and other countries recover quickly, exports will help - but that's a big 'if'.

The tax rise for the very rich is a decade overdue - but these people can afford tax lawyers to help them evade it as usual. The obvious dodge is to arrange their pay as capital gains - taxed at 15% I think. This is what the hedge fund traders did when the rate was 10% - thus paying far less tax proportionately than their cleaners, while not benefiting the country at all.