The Human Factor
Just over
30 years ago, Margaret Thatcher’s government decided to look at local
government finance. A young aide, John Redwood, outlined ‘some kind of poll tax
which is paid by every elector’. Discussions continued, and bright young men
(including the young Oliver Letwin) assured the Prime Minister that the figures
would all stack up. Unpopular to start with, perhaps, but necessary. Later,
Kenneth Baker had a niggle: ‘If I’m on Question Time and I’m asked “Why must
the Duke and the dustman pay the same?” there’s no answer.’ Last week the
energy secretary Amber Rudd was on Question Time. She was challenged by a
weeping Tory voter who asked why, as a mother who worked ‘bloody hard’, she
should have her tax credits taken away by a Tory government. There was no
answer. An awful sense of déjà vu is sweeping through the Tory party — not only
because of Charles Moore’s second volume of his Thatcher biography, with its
delicious details about how the poll tax was cooked up. Many Tories fear that
now, as then, the government has come up with a scheme which makes sense on
paper but which will end up being a political disaster. Welfare reform was
conducted by Iain Duncan Smith, who took great care to explain how he was out
to save lives, rather than save money. Tax credit reform is being handled by
George Osborne, who is less careful. Now and again, he snarls at those he
suspects of ‘sleeping off a life on benefits’ — portraying them as villains
rather than as victims of a cruel welfare system. He has been discouraged from
talking too much about the subject; David Cameron’s more compassionate language
has prevailed. Until now there has been a clear moral purpose behind Tory
welfare reforms: yes, life on benefits would be harder. But those who moved
into work would find every assistance — including tax cuts. Millions accepted
this bargain, and jobs have been created at an unprecedented rate. During the
general election, Cameron had a new message: that the Tories were now the new
workers’ party, and a vote for the Conservatives was a vote for economic
security. Now, Osborne is coming after the very people whom his party pushed
towards work. Those on the breadline, trying to work their way up, are finding
themselves treated like benefit cheats as a result of the Chancellor’s tax
credits crackdown. A mother of two children who is paid £20,000 stands to lose
£2,000 a year due to his reforms. Some seven million working families stand to
lose an average £1,200 a year. Some workers may claw back almost £150 a year by
the proposed minimum wage increase. But they also face a bitter headwind blown
by a Tory Treasury. Tax credits needed to be reformed. But Osborne had a
choice. He could have stopped issuing new tax credits, and phased them out.
That is how tax-credit cuts to larger families were handled in the last
parliament. Besides, the new welfare system, Universal Credit, will steadily
replace tax credits. But emboldened by the new parliamentary majority, and
seeing the Labour party in disarray, the Chancellor chose a faster route: to
tear tax credits away from the millions who have them. Yes, he argues, it will
be unpopular. But the next election is five years away. Now is the time to do
unpopular things and tackle the £80 billion deficit. And if the low-waged find
themselves losing money as a result, let them work harder to earn it back.
Under Jeremy Corbyn, he argues, the government faces no effective opposition —
so it is best to move now. Having spent most of his adult life in Westminster,
Osborne has come to view politics as a game of chess he is playing with the
Labour party. As a result, he struggles to comprehend the human factor — the
effect his policies will have on low-wage workers, who believed that the Tories
were on their side; the effect on the party’s reputation; and the effect on
Tory MPs, especially the new ones, who had themselves come to believe what the
Prime Minister was saying about being in politics to support working families.
The Chancellor now seems to relish the battle ahead; but this is a battle of
choice, not necessity. By wrenching tax credits away from low-waged families,
rather than phasing them out, he will save about £3.5 billion. He currently
plans to increase foreign aid by £3.5 billion. So he is making a political
choice: to confront the working poor, rather than face the embarrassment of
pausing his foreign aid giveaway. Or finding savings in the indefensibly
generous pensions budget, or in the £120 billion health budget. Or giving
himself another year to balance the books. The tax credits row is about more
than money: it’s about the identity, purpose and priorities of the Conservative
party. If the Chancellor is serious about wanting to lead that party, he should
think again.
VOCABULARY
- aide - помощник
- low-waged - низкооплачиваемый
- stick up - торчать
- snarl - рычание/ворчание
- Tory - член партии консерваторов