It’s coming up to election time so the legacy parties are broadcasting their wares for the punters. Money talks, so if the politicians can convince us through pecuniary means that we should vote for them then surely they are doing what comes naturally. Thing is, of course the government has no money. First it has to get it off the taxpayer and then it can use it to encourage as many people as possible to vote for it. This is reality and as long as the sun shines by day and the moon by night you cannot stop a degree of offering financial benefits to the electors to win their vote. These days that’s a very high degree. The degree to which any government tries to buy peoples’ votes will be in inverse proportion to the spiritual and moral integrity of that government. But then the government also reflects who we are as a people and the type of society we have built, so as George Osborne said, we are all in it together.
Two articles in the Times this last week illustrate the pre-election courting of the voters is cooking on gas as George and Ed fall over themselves to persuade us to vote for them.
So we have George Osborne aiming his sights fair and square at the silver surfers, the older members of the population who make up a substantial proportion of the voter base. No doubt Dave and George are terrified of the purple peril looming at their shoulders that has quite a lot of appeal for a lot of older voters who quite frankly resent being patronised by politicians over their ‘outdated’ views on things like the EU and gay marriage. The silver surfers comprise a substantial proportion of the electorate and so are a lucrative target for the main parties. They also tend to take their voting responsibilities seriously. Uncomfortably for the left, this vast swathe of people often tend to be more conservative in their thinking and so it will significantly be a fight between the Tories and UKIP for this section of the electorate.
What is George proposing? Nothing less than a multimillion pound bonds windfall for the over 65s, with pensioner bonds being given market leading savings rates. He has extended the 65 plus pensioner bonds scheme for another three months, until just after the election, after huge demand. It looks like about 1 in 10 of all pensioners will take part in the scheme. Thing is, this is all going to cost taxpayers rather a lot of money at a time of as we all know of necessary austerity, an estimated £500 million over 5 years. Mark Littlewood, director general of the Institute of Economic Affairs states that ‘borrowing more expensively than the government needs to is a direct subsidy to wealthy pensioners from the working age population.’
On the other hand, with eye wateringly low interest rates in recent times it has been tough for savers, many of whom are older people, so this helps to redress the balance some might argue. Borrowers such as those with tracker mortgages have had a whale of a time with lower repayments, whilst savers have had to put up with chicken feed. Bonds represent a fair rebalancing? However, there is one rule George appears to have broken and that is to borrow on the best terms for taxpayers. As Patrick Hosking, Financial Editor for the Times says, he could have borrowed the money at 0.3 per cent in the gilts market, instead he has borrowed at nine times that rate from pensioners.
Meanwhile David Cameron strongly hints he would protect universal pensioner benefits such as the winter fuel allowance and free TV licence. So the Conservatives are desperate for those silver votes.
Ed Milliband meanwhile is targeting new parents and working families with children with goodies from his gift bag. He was set to announce plans to give new fathers four weeks off work after a baby’s birth and to increase their statutory pay by £100 to at least £260 a week if he wins in May. This won’t be very popular with business groups, especially smaller companies. In addition of course Ed is planning to extend free childcare from 15 to 25 hours per week for working parents with three and four year olds. This would reduce spending on tax credits or benefits payments for low income families. Which is better, state subsidised work or state subsidised childcare?
So the parties line up to tell us how they are going to spend the money they have previously taken off us in tax. Trouble is, how well or badly the main parties intend to redistribute our money is not the main issue facing the UK. If people vote mainly on how much extra finance they will enjoy, or how much better off they could be financially, they could be voting for the increasingly swift demolition of our nation. It takes far sighted and perceptive voters to see through the short term financial gains being dangled in front of the electorate by the different parties, you might argue this is hoping for a bit too much from the average British voter. But there we are. There are far more salient issues to do with our survival as a cohesive nation than how much extra money we enjoy per year, and It’s going to be an interesting few months! The mantra, ‘it’s the economy, stupid’ does have its limits.