Budget 2013: Osborne does it best when he does nothing at all

“The last thing we need is more tinkering”.

Asked what he wanted from next week’s budget, one successful entrepreneur I spoke to this week replied “not much".

A couple of others in the same discussion agreed. None had a list of proposals at the ready. It wasn’t that they don’t care what Mr Osborne says (although all agreed their focus was more on their businesses), it’s more that they want him to do very little. It fits with the general theme I hear from business that the government’s role should be to create a positive growth environment and then get out of the way.

And with the national finances in a pickle, the entrepreneurs were unanimous that the boldest thing Mr Osborne could do was nothing.

“The last thing we need is more tinkering,” said one. Her point is one ICAEW made in its submission to George Osborne, in which it suggested that instability in tax policymaking undermines future confidence. Whatever the good intentions, the culture of constant change in the tax system ends up leading to complexity.

After last year’s omnishambles, Osborne might himself wish he could get away with doing nothing. But with forecasters pointing to a triple-dip recession, sitting on his hands isn’t a political option for Osborne any more than it’s an economic one.

Assuming he ignores calls (some from within the coalition) for a switch to a plan B, or a plan A+, and instead sticks rigidly to fiscal austerity, he will have very limited scope for manoeuvre. As a result, rather like the wizard in the Wizard of Oz, he’ll be using all the political trickery, smoke and mirrors he can to create the illusion of doing lots to help the country (and will be especially keen to be seen to help what he calls strivers and “the working poor”) without really being able to do a great deal.

The best outcome for business would be a Budget that really grasps the need to inject growth and confidence into the economy. As ICAEW explained in its Budget submission, this means putting in place the right mechanisms for getting finance to small businesses. This doesn’t mean another rebranding of the government’s lending scheme (which has already been re-launched on several occasions) but it does mean getting the proposed Business Bank up and running properly. It requires the funds already made available, whether through the Local Enterprise Partnerships or other mechanisms such as Funding for Lending to actually get to the frontline.

Accepting the limited scope for action open to the chancellor, combined with the need for a little political magic, (these occasions are often as much about pulling political rabbits out of the hat as they are sensible economics) there will doubtless be a whole raft of changes to various types of taxation.

Personal allowances will be raised, some commentators are expecting a tactical reduction in VAT (possibly for the hospitality sector), while others point to a continuing reduction in corporation tax (this one coming into force in 2014).

In the absence of much room for real action, it is fair to assume there will be a number of consultations announced into a whole host of potential schemes many of which will never amount to much, but which look good on the day.

There will be the usual media flurry listing winners and losers from the budget, all filtered through the current political lens of austerity and Labour’s constant jibe that the Tories are more concerned with helping the rich than the poor.

It’s hard to think that there would be more winners if Mr Osborne listened to the entrepreneurs and made next week’s the shortest Budget in history.

This article first appeared in economia.

Photograph: Getty Images

Richard Cree is the Editor of Economia.

Show Hide image

7 problems with the Snooper’s Charter, according to the experts

In short: it was written by people who "do not know how the internet works".

A group of representatives from the UK Internet Service Provider’s Association (ISPA) headed to the Home Office on Tuesday to point out a long list of problems they had with the proposed Investigatory Powers Bill (that’s Snooper’s Charter to you and me). Below are simplified summaries of their main points, taken from the written evidence submitted by Adrian Kennard, of Andrews and Arnold, a small ISP, to the department after the meeting. 

The crucial thing to note is that these people know what they're talking about - the run the providers which would need to completely change their practices to comply with the bill if it passed into law. And their objections aren't based on cost or fiddliness - they're about how unworkable many of the bill's stipulations actually are. 

1. The types of records the government wants collected aren’t that useful

The IP Bill places a lot of emphasis on “Internet Connection Records”; i.e. a list of domains you’ve visited, but not the specific pages visited or messages sent.

But in an age of apps and social media, where we view vast amounts of information through single domains like Twitter or Facebook, this information might not even help investigators much, as connections can last for days, or even months. Kennard gives the example of a missing girl, used as a hypothetical case by the security services to argue for greater powers:

 "If the mobile provider was even able to tell that she had used twitter at all (which is not as easy as it sounds), it would show that the phone had been connected to twitter 24 hours a day, and probably Facebook as well… this emotive example is seriously flawed”

And these connection records are only going to get less relevant over time - an increasing number of websites including Facebook and Google encrypt their website under "https", which would make finding the name of the website visited far more difficult.

2. …but they’re still a massive invasion of privacy

Even though these records may be useless when someone needs to be found or monitored, the retention of Internet Connection Records (IRCs) is still very invasive – and can actually yield more information than call records, which Theresa May has repeatedly claimed are the non-digital equivalent of ICRs. 

Kennard notes: “[These records] can be used to profile them and identify preferences, political views, sexual orientation, spending habits and much more. It is useful to criminals as it would easily confirm the bank used, and the time people leave the house, and so on”. 

This information might not help find a missing girl, but could build a profile of her which could be used by criminals, or for over-invasive state surveillance. 

3. "Internet Connection Records" aren’t actually a thing

The concept of a list of domain names visited by a user referred to in the bill is actually a new term, derived from “Call Data Record”. Compiling them is possible, but won't be an easy or automatic process.

Again, this strongly implies that those writing the bill are using their knowledge of telecommunications surveillance, not internet era-appropriate information. Kennard calls for the term to be removed, or at least its “vague and nondescript nature” made clear in the bill.

4. The surveillance won’t be consistent and could be easy to dodge

In its meeting with the ISPA, the Home Office implied that smaller Internet service providers won't be forced to collect these ICR records, as it would use up a lot of their resources. But this means those seeking to avoid surveillance could simply move over to a smaller provider.

5. Conservative spin is dictating the way we view the bill 

May and the Home Office are keen for us to see the surveillance in the bill as passive: internet service providers must simply log the domains we visit, which will be looked at in the event that we are the subject of an investigation. But as Kennard notes, “I am quite sure the same argument would not work if, for example, the law required a camera in every room in your house”. This is a vast new power the government is asking for – we shouldn’t allow it to play it down.

6. The bill would allow our devices to be bugged

Or, in the jargon, used in the draft bill, subjected to “equipment interference”. This could include surveillance of everything on a phone or laptop, or even turning on its camera or webcam to watch someone. The bill actually calls for “bulk equipment interference” – when surely, as Kennard notes, “this power…should only be targeted at the most serious of criminal suspects" at most.

7. The ability to bug devices would make them less secure

Devices can only be subject to “equipment interference” if they have existing vulnerabilities, which could also be exploited by criminals and hackers. If security services know about these vulnerabilities, they should tell the manufacturer about them. As Kennard writes, allowing equipment interference "encourages the intelligence services to keep vulnerabilities secret” so they don't lose surveillance methods. Meanwhile, though, they're laying the population open to hacks from cyber criminals. 


So there you have it  – a compelling soup of misused and made up terms, and ethically concerning new powers. Great stuff. 

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.