Conservative cabinet ministers at the party's press conference at Millbank this afternoon. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

The trap the Tories have set for Labour on cuts

Osborne's claim of a "blackhole" in Miliband's plans is forcing his party to shout louder about its commitment to continued austerity. 

The sight of five cabinet ministers (George Osborne, William Hague, Theresa May, Nicky Morgan and Sajid Javid) taking the stage at the Tories' first press conference of this election year was a rather odd one. As I noted on Twitter, it looked like a leadership hustings with Boris strangely absent, or the reformation of an aged pop group. But the quintet were all unambiguously singing from the same hymn sheet. The choice, we were repeatedly told, was between Tory "competence" and Labour "chaos", between sticking to "our long-term economic plan", or returning to "the mess" of 2010. 

The event was held to mark the launch of the Conservatives' attack dossier on the opposition's spending plans. The 82-page document (decked out in Budget red to lend it spurious authority) claimed to have uncovered a £20.7bn black hole in Labour's programme (alleging £23.26bn of spending commitments against £2.52bn of cuts/tax rises). But it quickly began to unravel under the mildest of scrutiny. As several journalists noted during the Q&A, the document falsely equates criticism of cuts with a commitment to reverse them. For instance, nowhere has Labour suggested that it will cancel £3.35bn of local authority cuts, or £83m of Arts Council funding reductions. 

But Javid, the Tories' attack dog of choice, had a ready response: "If Labour thinks that we're wrong in asserting this, then it's up to them to come out today and they can say 'We will not reverse those cuts.'" This the Labour press team promptly did, tweeting that "p.44 of Tory dossier says Labour will cancel cuts to the arts budget. We won't." The rapid rebuttal allows Labour to claim that its plans are fully costed and credible (as the IFS has said) but at the cost of reminding voters of its commitment to continued austerity. In short, "We didn't like the cuts, we attacked the cuts, but we're going to have to keep them." 

This frugal stance opens up political space for the SNP and the Greens, both having recently eaten into Labour's left-wing support. The dilemma that the party faces is between appearing less credible than it would like or more austere than it would like. At the briefing that followed, an Osborne aide declared satisfiedly: "If they want to pull out other examples and say 'That's not our policy' that is going to cause them massive problems." 

The Tories are not short of their own problems. When challenged on how they would pay for their promise of £7.2bn of tax cuts, Osborne merely asserted that his cuts were forecast to produce a surplus of £23bn. But having pledged in 2010 to all but eliminate the deficit and ended up only halving it (and even then only as a share of GDP), why should we take his word for it? Javid fared even worse on The World At One when he conceded that the Tories hadn't "spelt out" how they would afford the planned tax cuts. But their wager (and it may prove right) remains that their poll lead on economic credibility is so great as to allow them to play faster and looser than Labour. In the meantime, they can be reasonably satisfied with forcing the opposition onto the mine-laden pitch of austerity. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

In your 30s? You missed out on £26,000 and you're not even protesting

The 1980s kids seem resigned to their fate - for now. 

Imagine you’re in your thirties, and you’re renting in a shared house, on roughly the same pay you earned five years ago. Now imagine you have a friend, also in their thirties. This friend owns their own home, gets pay rises every year and has a more generous pension to beat. In fact, they are twice as rich as you. 

When you try to talk about how worried you are about your financial situation, the friend shrugs and says: “I was in that situation too.”

Un-friend, right? But this is, in fact, reality. A study from the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that Brits in their early thirties have a median wealth of £27,000. But ten years ago, a thirty something had £53,000. In other words, that unbearable friend is just someone exactly the same as you, who is now in their forties. 

Not only do Brits born in the early 1980s have half the wealth they would have had if they were born in the 1970s, but they are the first generation to be in this position since World War II.  According to the IFS study, each cohort has got progressively richer. But then, just as the 1980s kids were reaching adulthood, a couple of things happened at once.

House prices raced ahead of wages. Employers made pensions less generous. And, at the crucial point that the 1980s kids were finding their feet in the jobs market, the recession struck. The 1980s kids didn’t manage to buy homes in time to take advantage of low mortgage rates. Instead, they are stuck paying increasing amounts of rent. 

If the wealth distribution between someone in their 30s and someone in their 40s is stark, this is only the starting point in intergenerational inequality. The IFS expects pensioners’ incomes to race ahead of workers in the coming decade. 

So why, given this unprecedented reversal in fortunes, are Brits in their early thirties not marching in the streets? Why are they not burning tyres outside the Treasury while shouting: “Give us out £26k back?” 

The obvious fact that no one is going to be protesting their granny’s good fortune aside, it seems one reason for the 1980s kids’ resignation is they are still in denial. One thirty something wrote to The Staggers that the idea of being able to buy a house had become too abstract to worry about. Instead:

“You just try and get through this month and then worry about next month, which is probably self-defeating, but I think it's quite tough to get in the mindset that you're going to put something by so maybe in 10 years you can buy a shoebox a two-hour train ride from where you actually want to be.”

Another reflected that “people keep saying ‘something will turn up’”.

The Staggers turned to our resident thirty something, Yo Zushi, for his thoughts. He agreed with the IFS analysis that the recession mattered:

"We were spoiled by an artificially inflated balloon of cheap credit and growing up was something you did… later. Then the crash came in 2007-2008, and it became something we couldn’t afford to do. 

I would have got round to becoming comfortably off, I tell myself, had I been given another ten years of amoral capitalist boom to do so. Many of those who were born in the early 1970s drifted along, took a nap and woke up in possession of a house, all mod cons and a decent-paying job. But we slightly younger Gen X-ers followed in their slipstream and somehow fell off the edge. Oh well. "

Will the inertia of the1980s kids last? Perhaps – but Zushi sees in the support for Jeremy Corbyn, a swell of feeling at last. “Our lack of access to the life we were promised in our teens has woken many of us up to why things suck. That’s a good thing. 

“And now we have Corbyn to help sort it all out. That’s not meant sarcastically – I really think he’ll do it.”