The Guardian, Financial Times and Independent devote their front pages on the “backlash” that will follow George Osborne’s first Budget tomorrow. The Guardian says “Osborne said he had designed the budget to ensure that everyone played their part in tackling the deficit, but last night that argument seemed to be failing to convince as he came under attack from industry, civil society groups and unions over the plans.” Tim Nichols of the Child Poverty Action Group said: “Despite promises of fairness from the coalition government, they appear to have no process in place for delivering it. We need to know why people on low incomes are being clobbered with cuts to free school meals and the future jobs fund while many higher up the income scale have barely felt a pinch.”
The Financial Times reports that, “Official forecasts will show George Osborne’s emergency Budget hitting growth and costing jobs in the short term, government sources said last night, but the austerity measures will also create a brighter climate for the economy by the end of the parliament.” The Independent forecasts, “a substantial jump in unemployment over the next few years – closer to 10 per cent or 3 million jobless than the current 2.5 million – figures that recall the dark days of the 1970s.” The Telegraph reports that Mr Osborne risks a rift within the Coalition, “as Liberal Democrat backbenchers said that they could not support cuts to welfare budgets.”
The Daily Telegraph‘s front page focuses on potential changes to public sector pensions. The paper reports that, “Nurses, teachers, council workers, civil servants and police officers will be expected to pay hundreds or even thousands of pounds more each year into their pension pots, as the era of early retirement on generous payments is brought to an end.” Former Labour Work and Pensions Secretary, John Hutton, will lead a new government commission, which “could recommend that public sector staff begin paying more towards their retirement as early as next spring.” The Independent says a “row” has been caused by Mr Hutton’s appointment and quotes remarks made by John Prescott on his blog: “I was surprised to see Lib Dems used by the Thatcherites like Cameron and Osborne to provide cover in the Treasury for their heartless programme of cuts. Watch them bring used again as apologists for that VAT rise on Tuesday. But that pales into insignificance now Labour ministers – Labour ministers – have decided to collaborate with the Tories … Now we have the unedifying spectacle of John Hutton, Labour’s former Work and Pensions minister, chairing a new Independent Pensions Commission with the obvious aim to dismantle state pensions.”
The Times front page appears to leap on a single press release by the CBI business group to produce the headline: “Demand for strike laws to curb union militancy”. The paper reports that “British business leaders are demanding contingency plans from the Government, comprising new union laws, to cope with the surge in industrial action they expect after public sector cuts to be announced in the Budget tomorrow.” But only John Cridland, the CBI’s deputy director-general, is quoted: “The bar needs to be raised, so strike action is not possible unless 40 per cent of the workforce has actively voted to withdraw its labour.” Under the proposals, ballot rules would be changed so that industrial action could go ahead only if 40 per cent of the balloted workforce support it, as well as a simple majority of those voting, which is the current requirement. In the Financial Times, Brendan Barber, general secretary of the Trades Union Congress, said the CBI proposals were “a demolition job on the rights at work of their members’ staff – and a charter for exploitation by unscrupulous employers”.
The Guardian covers research by the Sutton Trust showing that “student fees hike ‘may cut applications by half’.” The Ipsos Mori survey of 2,700 11- to 16-year-olds found that four out of five young people in England and Wales currently think they will probably go on into higher education, but that figure would drop to just 45 per cent if fees doubled to £7,000 a year, and to a third among those whose with unemployed parents. At £10,000, just a quarter would set their sights on a degree. The number of young people currently aspiring to go to university is at a record high, up seven percentage points since 2008. Peter Lampl, the Sutton Trust’s chairman, said: “If Lord Browne’s review concludes that higher fees are necessary, there is a significant task ahead in ensuring that all young people – and particularly those from non-privileged homes – are equipped with the information they need to make well-informed decisions.” The president of the NUS, and Left Foot Forward contributor, Aaron Porter, said: “These statistics are further proof that increasing the already crippling debt that faces students when they graduate from university would dramatically impact the number of young people able to enter higher education.” The leaders of seven unions wrote a letter to the Guardian: “We also reject the idea of lifting the cap on student top-up fees which we believe will squeeze out poorer students. Rather, there should be sustained public investment in education to promote widening participation and aid economic recovery.”
The Telegraph reports that Barack Obama’s chief of staff Rahm Emanuel is “expected to quit White House”. Washington insiders say he will quit within six to eight months in frustration at their unwillingness to “bang heads together” to get policy pushed through. The paper reports that it is “well known in Washington” that arguments have developed between pragmatic Mr Emanuel, a veteran in Congress where he was known for driving through compromises, and the idealistic inner circle who followed Mr Obama to the White House. Friends are reported saying he is also worried about burnout and losing touch with his young family due to the pressure of one of most high profile jobs in US politics.
16 Responses to “Politics Summary: Monday, June 21st”
Mr. Sensible
Mr Mouse, not exactly the greatest start, is it.
Are you trying to say that the Office for Budget Responsibility are wrong?
They said, specifically that the deficit was not as bad as the previous government forecast.
Therefore, this is a case of the Chancellor, in his own words, ‘fixing the finances to fit the budget.’