David Cameron promises opportunity for the few and hopelessness for the rest

Under the Conservatives' new plans to remedy the “something for nothing culture” in the UK, you will now be getting nothing for something.

There is now a well established pattern of the Conservative Party kicking the poorest, in reaction to a crisis. It is like a nervous tic. If an asteroid threatened the earth with imminent Armageddon, their reaction - I am quite sure - would be to privatise all observatories, give a tax break to a restrictively defined class of married astronaut and cut all benefits.

After a very successful Labour Party conference, George Osborne announced wide ranging schemes which would once and for all tackle the “something for nothing culture” in the UK. I was very willing to listen. If anyone knows about the “something for nothing culture”, after all, it is a man who inherited his considerable wealth and flipped his taxpayer-funded constituency home for a profit of £400k; the only man in history whose CV reads “Data Entry Clerk, Towel Folder, Member of Parliament, Chancellor of the Exchequer”. This comes less than a week after revealing he is launching a legal challenge against the EU, at taxpayers’ expense, to protect grotesque Bankers’ bonuses. Protecting the people whose selfish and malicious decisions caused this crisis, while punishing the many innocents who lost their living as a result of it.

Never mind the fact that workfare schemes of the kind proposed do absolutely nothing to create jobs and their success in getting people to work is questionable, at best. Never mind that no work has been done to model whether such schemes actually cannibalise real jobs and have a deflationary effect on wages. The report the government itself commissioned to look at such schemes abroad concluded that “Workfare is least effective in getting people into jobs in weak labour markets where unemployment is high.” Never mind that, rather than eliminating the “something for nothing culture”, these schemes actually elevate it to the corporate level.  

The popularity of such initiatives is predicated on a bizarre form of reverse social envy against those less fortunate; built on stories of rhetorical drawn curtains and fictional families no member of which has worked in three generations. “Getting up early in the morning and doing something I hate for money is what I have to do. You should have to, too. Even if it is entirely counterproductive.” That seems to be the cri-de-coeur rising from the people whom the Tories claim to represent. Those “hardworking taxpayers” so self-sufficient they do not even need hyphens.

“Is this the start of a process where people will work for no salary?” asked a BBC News anchor. “Not quite. They will still get benefits,” countered their chief political correspondent, Norman Smith. But here is a question which has not been answered: if National Insurance no longer insures me against unemployment - one of the key elements for which both I and my employer pay it – why should we still be paying it at precisely the same rate? To cross-subsidise a cut of the top rate of tax? To pay for the pensions’ liability of Royal Mail employees, long after we have sold the assets? To fund legal action which seeks to protect City bonuses?

The whole concept of insurance is that you pay into it, knowing you may never need it, in order to purchase peace of mind. Nobody would stand for a car insurer suddenly turning around and asking its customers to do a bit of free work in its offices in order for their claim to be honoured. It may be emotionally easy to support such schemes if you connect them to rare but overly publicised cases of people defrauding the state. It is less easy to support them if you connect them to, for instance, military personnel which were dumped en mass by the 2010 review, have had great trouble getting back into the civilian workforce and many of whom will be coming up to two years unemployed soon. Lloyd George, introducing the National Insurance bill to Parliament in 1911, called it “a measure that will relieve untold misery in myriads of homes — misery that is undeserved; that will help to prevent a good deal of wretchedness.” The only thing that has changed, subtly but insidiously, appears to be public perception of “undeserved”.

What do these measures, which you may support emotionally, mean for you logically? Do they not vitiate one of the most important principles of our society? How certain are you that you or your children will not find yourselves cleaning graffiti or sweeping streets in two year’s time, for no remuneration other than the luxury of claiming back from a system into which you have paid? Will our lives be better or worse for the lack of that safety net? Now, you may answer all those questions in a way which confirms your support of such punitive measures. But at least make sure you ask them.

Cameron went further on Wednesday. He announced proposals to withdraw housing benefit, possibly all benefits, from under 25s. Again, very little thought has gone on the economic effect on parents, who will have to subsidise their children for seven years more than they might have budgeted. Not to mention the human cost for families who cannot afford to. That, in a nutshell, is what one gets with the Conservatives. A transfer of liability, en mass, from the state to the citizen, while personal and indirect taxation add up to more and more and, crucially, unbeknown to most the national debt continues to increase from under £800bn in 2010 to an eye-watering £1.4trn in 2015. Sorry to inform you, some “tough decisions” have had to be made. You are now getting nothing for something. Paying National Insurance, then having to work below minimum wage for your payout. Paying to buy shares in a mail service you already own and end up not owning it.

Certainty for corporations. Uncertainty for individuals. Land of opportunity for the few. Wasteland of hopelessness for the rest. The relentless focus is on creating an environment of advantage and security for business – and only large multinational business, at that – so that they may budget, invest and thrive. The implication is that individuals do not budget, do not invest and do not deserve to thrive. Were you planning to retire around 60? Did you think you had discharged your financial responsibility to your offspring when they reached majority? Were you under the impression that paying into a social security kitty granted you to some level of social security?

Not to worry, though; at least both you and your neighbour have to open your curtains at the same time in the morning. Which is what really matters, right?

When the going gets tough, the Conservatives kick the poorest. Photo: Getty

Greek-born, Alex Andreou has a background in law and economics. He runs the Sturdy Beggars Theatre Company and blogs here You can find him on twitter @sturdyalex

Getty
Show Hide image

We are heading for the next recession – it's crucial the right people are in charge

There is grave economic trouble ahead, and if the Tory right are in power, the consequences could be ghastly.

Well, we were warned. The governor of the Bank of England and the IMF, as well as much of the financial community, were very clear that Brexit would produce a damaging economic shock. It is happening.

Even if we discount George Osborne’s absurd and counterproductive attempts to predict the precise fall in house prices and threaten a deflationary emergency budget, there were sensible and dispassionate warnings of severe trouble ahead. We now need to think through how progressive opponents of this government should respond.

My starting point is a disagreement with my Tory former colleagues in the coalition – from both Remain and Leave – who argue that Britain has a “fundamentally strong economy”. It doesn’t. We have barely recovered from the 2008 crisis, are still on the life-support system of artificially cheap money and have a horribly unbalanced economy. Recovery was happening but fragile.

The first stage in the post-Brexit shock is the predictable turbulence in financial markets as liquid investors jump into safer assets and away from riskier holdings of sterling, UK banks and other shares. This is a very different situation from 2008, which was a financial crisis to which politicians had to respond; this is a political crisis, a huge escalation of political risk, to which markets are responding.

The fall in sterling should not exercise us too much. If devaluation is locked in, it would help rebalancing. The Monetary Policy Committee will surely be sensible and disregard the short-term inflationary consequences, as members did the spike in commodity prices five years ago. If investors move out of UK residential property and precipitate a sustained fall in house prices, that is also to be welcomed. The main casualties of the immediate turbulence are Brexit-voting pensioners whose annuity values crashed with the flight into gilts.

The gravest potential short-term risk was anticipated by the Bank of England when it pumped in £250bn to prevent a drying up of liquidity in the banking system and another credit crunch. The prompt action has clearly reassured markets. However, what may be more serious is the gradual reassessment of risk by bank credit committees leading to restrictions on lending to smaller businesses. That would be disastrous for growth. A pragmatic government should reach for some of the tools created by the coalition, such as the British Business Bank, for sources of business credit.

In the second stage the crisis will migrate from asset markets to the real economy and jobs. The new Tory leader will be praying the time before unemployment kicks in will be long enough to have a general election. By autumn, we shall have a clearer picture of the scale of any slowdown, but I find it difficult to see how we can avert a Brexit recession.

The issue is how to deal with a recession. Monetary stimuli are losing effectiveness. With interest rates close to zero, there isn’t much scope for further cuts and quantitative easing is becoming increasingly problematic. Some in the City will be urging more cuts, worried about Osborne’s plan to eliminate government borrowing by 2019.

There was never a better time for public investment to fill the gap in demand left by private investors. There is a long pipeline of coalition infrastructure projects, including Network Rail’s stalled investment plan, to get on with. But then we encounter the Treasury’s pathological aversion to borrowing to invest. Its deep conservative instincts will be reinforced by our deteriorating credit rating.

Yet the need to confront the structure and balance of the economy transcends the issues of short-term crisis and medium-term macroeconomic management. The financial sector may well take a bad hit with banks migrating to European centres. We should not minimise the costs to individuals and the Exchequer, but it may be no bad thing if the result is some rebalancing. The industrial strategy put in place under the coalition is an ideal vehicle for building confidence in long-term investment in manufacturing and creative industry. Of course, none of this will happen without a speedy confirmation of the UK’s continued role within the single market.

How the economics of this political crisis will be dealt with depends on the parliament that is returned when a new Tory leader calls an election. If the Tory right emerges triumphant, the consequences will be ghastly. If the parties of the centre and left – including disaffected Tory Remainers – can get themselves organised, however, we could see an altogether happier outcome.

This article first appeared in the 30 June 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Brexit lies