Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Pax Osbornia: recasting the political landscape into the 20
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Pax Osbornia: recasting the political landscape into the 2030s
It takes a staggering degree of self-restraint and of confidence to know that you plan to increase the minimum wage by more than 10% and to choose to say nothing about it during an election campaign. It also shows a fine level of political judgement. Had George Osborne done so, he would have been accused of panicking and of allowing Labour to set the agenda.
0
Comments
I think the next PM will be Osborne. As you say he has an awareness of his own presentational defects. But more importantly he has the support of the PM, who controls the agenda and who has already stated that he will step down before the next GE in what is now a fixed term parliament. So I think you need to be cautious with comparisons with history of previous chancellors/favourites to succeed. Cameron and Osborne have far greater control of "succession planning" than was in the gift of former PMs.
Osborne is in the box seat and is currently best placed to take over when Cameron steps aside.
I do think he'd make a better no. 2 than a frontman, but nor am I sure his politics will succeed as much as this article thinks it might. There have been not insignificant grumblings from some on the right on this budget.
On the other hand, having Cameron's support could see him overcome his downsides, if Cameron is going out as a winner. Perhaps this falls under the heading of charisma, but what Cameron has which Osborne might not is that although some people hate him, most people do not fear him, fear what he might do. Maybe it's not outright likability even, but labour scare tactics didn't stick to Cameron the way Tory ones did on ed m. Osborne being less likeable, or inoffensive at least, may not have the same benefit, so he needs Cameron to go out strong for him as obvious successor to work, so the party might think he has a shot with the public like Cameron.
Honestly, what was the point of all the anguish and confusion of the last 6 months, the last few years, if this is where they've all ended up ?
As for the future the Greek banks need LOTS of money to recapitalise. Like LOTS. And the only source is the ECB. So the ECB have a huge weapon: enact reforms or we will pull the plug on the banks.
The steel fist in the velvet glove.Tsipras are responsible. They screwed it up.
http://www.naftemporiki.gr/finance/story/976680/the-greek-reform-proposals
Despite being the Tories' best strategist and enjoying the current back-slaps I don't see Osborne as leader for the reasons you mention.
If he really wants the top job - and his cultivation of backbench supporters (a pointer to his admirable level of hard work) suggests he does) I think he will be better served to a) concentrate on doing a very good and loyal job as Chancellor (avoiding 'differentiation' and 'carving out his own image' bollocks ) and b) act as though he doesn't covet it; that he is a slightly reluctant, modest successor.
Along with his slappable face, Osborne's other unfortunate tic is his sneering, pompous joy in the Commons. It is off-putting, even for me as a supporter. I suspect most non tribal voters will be willing to reward Osborne for his success if the economy goes well but only if he portrays himself as a statesmanlike, self-aware figure. He needs to avoid comparisons to Brown; as a plotting, tribal Chancellor, licking his lips at the prospect of power. If the media portray his as the heir-in-waiting I think he'll be ruined. The media like nothing better than a riches-to-rags political journey and they'll build him up ready for the electorate to knock him down.
He's a much rejuvenated figure since the 2012 budget though and has to be the current favourite.
Not likely to enhance your career prospects...
Given that Osborne is on record saying that he was expecting a coalition, the limited moves on low pay can be seen in that context.
It was not restraint, at best it was tactics.
I'm a bit worried that thus surprise election result has gone to some Tory heads. Reminiscent of some Labour folk post 2005.
a) make sure a terrible opposition was not allowed to win and
b) that as a consequence of that the Tories get 5 more years.
Undoubtedly there is lots of fun looking at the election for new Labour leader from the poor list of candidates, and much amusement at Osborne parking his tanks on Labour's lawn.
That's where we are now and from now on its events dear boy events. Labour are at present in no position to win in 2020. They have a lot to do and economic credibility once lost is not regained overnight.
You are right about events. It is sobering to think that the single defining event of 13 new Labour years had yet to happen at this same stage in the second term. An event no government could control.
Who was it that said Osborne should have been replaced by Hammond in early 2010?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17449501
The main point was obviously stomping on the landmine laid by Labour, to reduce top rate tax from 50% to 45% (Labour happily ignoring that the 40% rate they inherited from Thatcher was kept in place for 98% of their term). But that had to be detonated at some point - for the simple reason that it raises more tax at the lower rates.
But once you get beyond the manufactured media-wank of the "pastie tax", this looks like just the sort of Budget to help steer the economy away from the rocks to which the Labour sirens would have lured us. In short, it was setting up the economy to be in fine fettle for the election in 2015. As some of us pointed out at the time...
Wise words. As we all know, Priti Patel or Justine Greening will be the next Prime Minister/Conservative leader.
On the other hand, does anyone *really* think they'd like to punch anyone's face? Perhaps I'm too peaceful...
The budget was framed as a payrise for all. If the IFS is correct millions of working families will be worse off. Seeking to depict them as scroungers and sneering about "prizes for all" is not the way to sell what the Tories cheered last Wednesday. Experience trumps rhetoric, and if enough voters are adversely affected by the consequences of the cuts the Tories will be in trouble. Clearly, Osborne's gamble is that he has done enough to keep the 37% of voters who voted Tory onside and that Labour will not attract enough of the remaining 63% to do much about it. He could well be right. But I would not bet my house on it. Events, dear boy, events.
It's worth noting that Osborne did not talk about a minimum wage, he talked about a Living Wage. In not using that term in his article David is implicitly accepting that could well have been a significant mistake. A living wage is one you can live on. That is what voters will now expect.
But surely we can agree across the political divide - about the satisfaction of punching Piers Morgan?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/10/george-osborne-july-budget-2015
David Herdson's view of George Osborne matches mine exactly. He is the most self-aware major politician that I can recall. If he remains unassailable, I expect he'll find another front man to allow him to continue his current role.
(And maybe an unforeseen consequence of fixed term parliaments is that Prime Ministers will step down after one and a half terms, having done another five years as LotO.)
Osborne as next leader, seems a possibility but he has to deliver on economic growth, infrastructure improvements - airports, railways, power supplies, roads et al.
A few years ago there was a graphic on the BBC website that showed by decile who were the net contributors financially to the state. It was only the top 40% with the top 10% paying more than half. A similar graphic showing the effect of the budget would be interesting.
The ageing population means that the working population are going to get a raw deal in some way over the decades to come. We may be entering the times where pensioners are financially supporting their children, like Greece. That may be fine for folk like me who expect to be not far off higher rate tax in retirement, and with real eastate too, but for many it will not be so rosy.
Universal Credit will solve it all, no doubt, but it does seem to be like waiting for Godot.
The transfer of employment costs from the tax payer to the employer was a masterstroke. The reality was that working tax credits (and child tax credits) were appallingly generous. Embarrassingly so.
If you go back to around 2008/9 the amount of money a low earner could get with tax credits was eye watering. There was no maximum child limit, and there was actual no anti fraud mechanism.
I have no children but when my wife went to university they threw tax credits at me. It began to get a touch embarrassing how much i could get.
A family with three to four kids, and one low earner could get around £13,000 to £15,000 in tax credits (hint: that is why people flocked here from other parts of the world. Word gets back as to how these things work. You come here, register on the lowest possibly paid job and you make your income + 2x /3x in tax credits).
In the fine print is the proposal to tax all travelling expenses and subsistence payments from next April. I spend around 220-240 nights a year away from home in a variety of locations and until now as long as I was not more than 24 months in any one location I could get expenses paid tax free. Now apparently spending 220 nights a year away from my wife and kids for my work is going to be considered a perk and I will be taxed on it at the higher rate of tax.
Rather miffed on a personal level at the moment.
What's the reasoning behind that sudden taxation?
I don't get the reasons for change at all except of course for it being an easy target. I cannot avoid the expenses as long as I am doing my job. The old rules (in existence at the moment) basically meant that if you were in one place for 2 years then you should be expected to move there which I suppose is reasonable even if it shows a lack of understanding of the nature of consulting work. Tax relief on expenses was limited to 2 years in one location.
The new rules basically mean that the only way I would have been able to avoid the expenses (and hence the tax) for the last 18 months - as an example - would have been to move house 5 times.
I am kind of resigned to it all I'm afraid. Short of actually packing in the company there is nothing I can do to avoid these huge tax hikes (the expenses tax alone will be around £14K extra next year on top of the changes to dividend and insurance tax) so it is just a case of lump it. But it hardly makes me feel of this government as being friendly to small businesses.
Worth lobbying your MP about I'd say.
I'm not suggesting that the Tories will govern into the 2030s. What I am suggesting is that this Wednesday's budget was the first really decisive step in the attempt to define a new consensus that will last into that decade.
The Tories economic credibility was destroyed in 1992 with the ERM debacle. Arguably that wasn't particularly their fault - there were good arguments for and against joining the ERM and they made a reasonable choice. Nonetheless, the ludicrous events of Black Wednesday were seared on the memories of a generation.
The electorate weren't willing to listen to the Tories for 18 years - and even then only in coalition. Of course, in part, this was down to Blair seizing the centre ground, but economic credibility had a big part to play as well.
I think that's what Osborne's up to: Labour's economic credibility has been obliterated (fairly or not) by the Tories' groundwork plus *that* answer on QT. Osborne has taken hold of the centre ground with the Budget. He's not aiming at winning in 2020. He wants 2015 to be Tories' 1997 - he wants to win in 2020, 2025 and (if he can) 2030 as well...
Given that you cannot exactly take out your own food (it is banned) it is effectively just another bit of employment tax - as is the new tax over here.
For people who work 16 hours and claim benefits it will be harder. But there are jobs available should they wish to increase their hours to compensate.
A small sub-set of the very rich do so: international non-doms, a number of high profile individuals and some people in finance.
Those people who I know in that segment of society (who, admittedly, tend to be only very rich as opposed to ludicrously rich) and very willing to make a fair contribution to the costs of running the country.
FWIW, the two things that upset people most are (i) paying more than 50% of their income in tax - so 47% is viewed as much fairer than 52% and (ii) the withdrawal of the personal allowance for income above £100,000. It may be a relatively small amount for these people - for someone on a £500K income, for instance, it would increase their post tax income from £250K to 255K: nice but not transformational - but psychologically it makes them feel that they are not being treated equally)
Greatest FM, Palmerston.
Greatest Home Secretary, Rab Butler, maybe.
Greatest Chancellor, Osborne.
Can you explain to me in what way I am not honest?
I work hard and generate significant value for my clients. As a result, they are willing to pay market fees to my employer who rewards me with a salary that is above your threshold.
Will the EU be there in its present form - very likely not as it implodes under disagreements due to having expanded too rapidly.
China could well own many of the larger European companies.
There may well be a form of Islam/Christian war that envelopes the Med, Middle East, Africa and parts of Asia.
There might even be a Sino/Japanese/Russian war as China seeks to expand to feed its population.
In your totalitarian world, is it possible to earn a five-figure salary( pounds, dollars, euros, I assume) honestly?
http://i.imgur.com/cIiJ1Sy.jpg
Antifrank's analysis of the new Labour MPs is fascinating - I only found one who has experience of wealth creation.
So why are Labour still dipping into the same limited pool of potential talent? Is it because others have fallen out of love with Labour or is Labour still thinking in terms of the last century.
The ability to create wealth will be even more vital in this century - perhaps Labour still has not realised that to spend wealth, you have first to create it. Is it still planting orchards of magic money trees?
Re: Laour leadership: If Liz K fails, will she link with fellow thinkers like Frank Field and Kate Hooey to form a critical thorn in the opposition's side?
As I said in the intro, in line with classic Conservative thinking, there's been a reappraisal of Labour's 2001-10 settlement and which bits can be incorporated into a new Tory consensus. The minimum wage - a concept the Tories were initially sceptical of - has been seen to have an important role to play in incentivising the working poor and as a self-earned means out of (or first step out of) poverty. And people who earn way beyond the minimum wage will see that as a much fairer mechanism than simply spraying money about.
I was quite surprised how much impact it had psychologically - and don't find it surprising that many others either scaled back or found ways around it instead.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ba3f3e42-2713-11e5-9c4e-a775d2b173ca.html#axzz3fZTxGLwJ
The composition of the new intake suggests that she has a point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lzS8yW8INA
I actually don't know how much tax somone in my bracket pays, or what bracket I am in. 30k
Similarly raising the minimum wage without tackling immigration is pointless.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-01-27/germany-deserved-debt-relief-greece-doesn-t-i5fdca2y
It cites this academic article from 2004, which is also fascinating reading for those wanting to understand 20th Century history:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=493802
In short: Germany got a write down of about 50% of its debt, but half of this was pre WW2 (the majority being from the Weimar period including WW1 reparations set by the Versaillies Treaty), and much of the rest was post war assistance under the Marshall plan, being converted from loans to grants, at the request of the creditor, the USA.
It is also worth noting that the deal incorporated pre war private debt, and also debts of federal states such as Prussia that were no longer in existence, and did not lie within West Germany. It was recognised that as West Germany consisted of little more than half of pre-war Germany that it was unreasonable for West Germany to be responsible for the entirety of pre war German debt. Upon unification In 1990 West Germany issued bonds to pay off the prewar debts of the East Germans.
All very different to the current Greek negotiations!
It's beyond ridiculous - campuses everywhere seem to have lost their collective marbles. Some are demanding to be *pre-warned* about course content that could upset or offend them, lecturers accused of racism for asking a student to *speak up more*.
I'm really glad I'm too old for such things.
The attack on tax credits is, in civil service-speak, brave. The problem is that not only are 100,000s, maybe millions, of working people going to be affected, but also that these people do not think tax credits are part of the welfare state. For a start they are run by HMRC not DWP. I suspect that when people voted for further cuts in benefits they did not imagine this would mean them.
Moreover, and far more significantly for the Greek situation, the debt restructuring under te London Agreement explicitly tied debt repayment to trade surplus and limited repayments to 3% of export value.
Everyone who actually wants to see this situation resolved properly has accepted that even if Greece abides by every demand of the EU/IMF they will still not be able to pay off the debt. It simply isn't possible. The IMF has finally accepted this in their latest report on Greece and some of the more reasonable members of the Eurozone have been saying this for a long time. Without significant debt relief this is just - as I keep pointing out - a very convoluted can kicking exercise.