George Osborne prepares to lead members of the Treasury team out of 11 Downing Street to face the media before the Budget. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

George Osborne shamelessly courts the pensioner vote

The Chancellor's offer to the over-65s is rational but crude politics: they vote more than any other age group.

There is a simple explanation for the lengthy section devoted to supporting savers and pensioners at the end of George Osborne's Budget speech: they vote. In 2010, 76 per cent of the over-65s turned out, more than any other age group. If the Tories are to edge Labour in a close election next year, winning the support of this group will be crucial.

For years since the coalition was formed, Conservative MPs have been calling for the Chancellor to provide relief to the pensioners (a significant number of whom have defected to UKIP) whose savings have been hit by the "monetary activism" (ultra-low interest rates and quantitative easing) he regards as necessary to support the recovery.

Today, he acted. He announced the abolition of the 10 per cent tax band on savings (taking at swipe at Labour by adding "when I abolish a 10p rate, I don't secretly turn it into a 20p rate") and the doubling of the zero pence band to £5,000, the launch of a new pensioner bond paying market rates, the removal of tax restrictions on how pensioners drawdown their savings pots, and a new "Right to Advice" for those retiring on defined contribution pensions. All of these measures were designed to match Osborne's rhetorical commitment to those who have "worked hard" and "saved" throughout their lives. His decision to exclude the state pension from the new cap on welfare spending is another show of support for this group. 

Many will rightly question his priorities. It is pensioners who have suffered the least during the long squeeze, with their benefits shielded from austerity, while the young have suffered the most. But Osborne's decision to favour the former over the latter is rational, if crude, politics. 

It is worth noting, however, that today's measures could well be a prelude to a Conservative pledge to means-test universal pensioner benefits, such as Winter Fuel Payments, free bus passes and free TV licences, in 2015. While the state pension has been excluded from the welfare cap, these payments have not. Osborne's "Budget for savers" may well be aimed at providing the Tories with the protective cover they need to execute this U-turn. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

By refusing to stand down, Jeremy Corbyn has betrayed the British working classes

The most successful Labour politicians of the last decades brought to politics not only a burning desire to improve the lot of the working classes but also an understanding of how free market economies work.

Jeremy Corbyn has defended his refusal to resign the leadership of the Labour Party on the grounds that to do so would be betraying all his supporters in the country at large. But by staying on as leader of the party and hence dooming it to heavy defeat in the next general election he would be betraying the interests of the working classes this country. More years of Tory rule means more years of austerity, further cuts in public services, and perpetuation of the gross inequality of incomes. The former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Seema Malhotra, made the same point when she told Newsnight that “We have an unelectable leader, and if we lose elections then the price of our failure is paid by the working people of this country and their families who do not have a government to stand up for them.”

Of course, in different ways, many leading figures in the Labour movement, particularly in the trade unions, have betrayed the interests of the working classes for several decades. For example, in contrast with their union counterparts in the Scandinavian countries who pressurised governments to help move workers out of declining industries into expanding sectors of the economy, many British trade union leaders adopted the opposite policy. More generally, the trade unions have played a big part in the election of Labour party leaders, like Corbyn, who were unlikely to win a parliamentary election, thereby perpetuating the rule of Tory governments dedicated to promoting the interests of the richer sections of society.

And worse still, even in opposition Corbyn failed to protect the interests of the working classes. He did this by his abysmal failure to understand the significance of Tory economic policies. For example, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had finished presenting the last budget, in which taxes were reduced for the rich at the expense of public services that benefit everybody, especially the poor, the best John McConnell could do – presumably in agreement with Corbyn – was to stand up and mock the Chancellor for having failed to fulfill his party’s old promise to balance the budget by this year! Obviously neither he nor Corbyn understood that had the government done so the effects on working class standards of living would have been even worse. Neither of them seems to have learnt that the object of fiscal policy is to balance the economy, not the budget.

Instead, they have gone along with Tory myth about the importance of not leaving future generations with the burden of debt. They have never asked “To whom would future generations owe this debt?” To their dead ancestors? To Martians? When Cameron and his accomplices banged on about how important it was to cut public expenditures because the average household in Britain owed about £3,000, they never pointed out that this meant that the average household in Britain was a creditor to the tune of about the same amount (after allowing for net overseas lending). Instead they went along with all this balanced budget nonsense. They did not understand that balancing the budget was just the excuse needed to justify the prime objective of the Tory Party, namely to reduce public expenditures in order to be able to reduce taxes on the rich. For Corbyn and his allies to go along with an overriding objective of balancing the budget is breathtaking economic illiteracy. And the working classes have paid the price.

One left-wing member of the panel on Question Time last week complained that the interests of the working classes were ignored by “the elite”. But it is members of the elite who have been most successful in promoting the interests of the working classes. The most successful pro-working class governments since the war have all been led mainly by politicians who would be castigated for being part of the elite, such as Clement Atlee, Harold Wilson, Tony Crosland, Barbara Castle, Richard Crossman, Roy Jenkins, Denis Healey, Tony Blair, and many others too numerous to list. They brought to politics not only a burning desire to improve the lot of the working classes (from which some of them, like me, had emerged) and reduce inequality in society but also an understanding of how free market economies work and how to deal with its deficiencies. This happens to be more effective than ignorant rhetoric that can only stroke the egos and satisfy the vanity of demagogues

People of stature like those I have singled out above seem to be much more rare in politics these days. But there is surely no need to go to other extreme and persist with leaders like Jeremy Corbyn, a certain election loser, however pure his motives and principled his ambitions.

Wilfred Beckerman is an Emeritus Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, and was, for several years in the 1970s, the economics correspondent for the New Statesman